DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways United States at War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways United States at War Thank you for downloading these United States at War Cheat Sheets. Our subscribers get access to all sorts of ex- clusive freebies as a perk for being a loyal reader. We’d love for you to join our list (if you haven’t already) of over 100,000 homeschoolers who love free stuff! Click here to subscribe and we will send you all of our current free resources. This publication may not be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without prior written consent from Homeschool Giveaways. Brief quotations may be included in a review. It may be stored on your computer in pdf format. This unit can be printed as needed for personal use only. Please note, the exact dates and names of wars vary by source. ©2019, Homeschool Giveaways Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved Navajo, Crown of Castile, Spain, Mexico, c.1600-1866 Navajo Wars and United States 1622-1644 Powhatan War Maryland, Powhatan, and Virginia Massachusetts Bay Colony, Mohegan, 1636-1637 Pequot War Narraganset, and Pequot 1643-1645 Kieft's War/Willem Kieft’s War/Wappinger War Colonists of New Netherland and Lenape Northeast Indians, Narraganset, 1675-1676 King Philip’s War/Great Narragansett War New England, and Wampanoag 1680 Pueblo Rebellion Pueblo Indians and Spain New France, Wabanaki Confederacy, England, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and 1688-1697 King William’s War Iroquois Confederacy Colonial Militia, Yamasee, Tuscarora, 1711-1713 Tuscarora War Catawba, Cherokee, allied tribes 1715-1716 Yamasee War British colonists and Yamasee Great Britain, Chickasaw, France, 1721-1763 Chickasaw Wars Choctaw, and Illini New England Colonies, Mohawk, Father Rale's War/Lovewell's War/Governor Wabanaki Confederacy, Abenaki, 1722-1725 Dummer's War/Greylock's War Pequawket, Mi’kmaq, and Maliseet 1739-1748 War of Jenkins' Ear British Empire and Spanish Empire 1744-1748 King George’s War France and United Kingdom United Kingdom, Iroquois Confederacy, Catawba, Cherokee, France, New France, Canada, Wabanaki Confederacy, Abenaki, Mi’kmaq, Algonquin, Mohawk, Lenape, 1754-1763 French and Indian War Ojibwa, Ottawa, Shawnee, and allies Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved Great Britain, Ottawa, Ojibwa, Shawnee, 1763-1764 Pontiac’s War Potawatomi, Huron, Miami, Delaware, 1768 Louisiana Rebellion of 1768 Creole, German settlers, and Spain 1773-1781 Cherokee-American Wars Cherokee and United States 1774 Lord Dunmore's War Shawnee and Virginia settlers Dutch Republic, France, Spain, United 1775-1783 American Revolution/American Revolutionary War Kingdom, American Colonists United States, Western Confederacy, 1785-1795 Northwest Indian War Great Britain, and British North America 1791-1794 Whiskey Rebellion Frontier protesters and United States United States, Batavian Republic, Great 1798-1800 Quasi-War Britain, France, and Spain 1799 Fries’s Rebellion Pennsylvania farmers and United States 1801-1805 First Barbary War/Tripolitan War Tripolitania and United States 1811-1813 Tecumseh's War Shawnee and United States 1812-1815 War of 1812 United States and Great Britain 1813-1814 Creek War Cherokee, Creek, and United States 1815 Second Barbary War/Algerian War United States and Regency of Algiers Seminole, Spain, United States, 1817-1818 First Seminole War and Black Seminole 1823 Arikara War United States and Arikara Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved Prairie La Crosse Ho-Chunks and 1827 Winnebago War United States Enslaved and free blacks and 1831 Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion Southampton County, Virginia 1832 Black Hawk War Sauk, Fox, Kickapoo, and United States 1835-1836 Texas Revolution/Texas War of Independence Republic of Texas and Mexico 1835-1836 Toledo War/Michigan-Ohio War State of Ohio and Territory of Michigan 1835-1842 Second Seminole War Seminole and United States 1841-1842 Dorr Rebellion Charterites and Dorrites (Rhode Island) United States, California Republic, 1846-1848 Mexican-American War and Mexico 1847-1850 Cayuse War Cayuse and United States 1851-1900 Apache Wars United States, Apache, Ute, and Yavapai Proslavery and antislavery 1854-1859 Bleeding Kansas groups in Kansas 1855-1856 Rogue River Wars United States and Rogue River people United States, Nisqually, Muckleshoot, 1855-1856 Puget Sound War Puyallup, Klickitat, Haida, and Tlingit 1855-1858 Yakama Indian Wars United States and Yakama 1855-1858 Third Seminole War Seminole and United States 1857-1858 Utah War United States and Nauvoo Legion Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved United States, Confederate States, Texas Rangers, Mexican Paramilitary Forces, 1859-1861 Cortina Troubles/First and Second Cortina War and Cortinistas 1860 Paiute War United States, Shoshone, and Bannock United States and Confederate States 1861-1865 American Civil War/War Between the States of America 1862 Sioux Uprising/Dakota War of 1862 United States and Dakota Sioux 1863-1865 Colorado War United States, Cheyenne, and Arapaho United States, Paiute, Bannock, 1864-1868 Snake War and Shoshone United States, Lakota, Cheyenne, and 1866-1868 Red Cloud’s War Arapaho Sheepmen and Cattlemen in c.1870-1920 Sheep Wars/Sheep and Cattle Wars Western United States 1872-1873 Modoc War/Lava Beds War United States and Modoc Republican Party and 1874 Brooks–Baxter War Liberal Republican Party United States, Cheyenne, Arapaho, 1874-1875 Red River Indian War Comanche, and Kiowa 1875 Las Cuevas War United States and Mexican militia 1875-1876 Mason County War United States and Texas vigilantes United States, Lakota Sioux, Northern 1876-1877 Great Sioux War of 1876/Black Hills War Cheyenne, and Arapaho 1877 Salt War/San Elizario, Texas San Elizario, Texas and the Texas Rangers Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved 1877 Nez Perce War United States and Nez Perce 1878 Bannock War United States, Bannock, and Shoshone 1878 Lincoln County War Regulators and local law enforcement 1878-1879 Cheyenne War United States and Cheyenne 1879 Sheepeater Indian War United States and Shoshone 1879-1880 White River War United States and Ute Pleasant Valley War/Tonto Basin Feud/Tonto Basin Graham Family, Blevins Family, and 1882-1892 War Tewksbury Family 1898 Spanish-American War Spain and United States United States, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and 1898-1934 Banana Wars Dominican Republic 1899-1902 Philippine-American War Filipino revolutionaries and United States Moro of Mindanao, Philippines 1901-1913 Moro Wars and United States United States, Carrancistas, Seditionists, 1910-1919 Bandit Wars and Villistas 1914-1915 Bluff War/Posey War of 1915/Polk and Posse War United States, Ute, and Paiute Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved Belgium, Brazil, British Empire, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Siam, United States, Austria- Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and 1914-1918 World War I Ottoman Empire 1923 Posey War United States, Ute, and Paiute Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Mongolian People's Republic, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Soviet Union, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania, 1939-1945 World War II and Slovakia Puerto Rican Nationalist Party 1950 Utuado Uprising and San Juan Nationalist Revolt and United States South Korea, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Philippines, Colombia, Ethiopia, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, China, 1950-1953 Korean War and Soviet Union Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved South Vietnam, United States, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Khmer Republic, Kingdom of Laos, North Vietnam, Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, 1954-1975 Vietnam War Khmer Issarak, and Pathet Lao 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion Cuba and United States of America Egypt, France, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War Syria, United Kingdom, and United States Bosnia and Herzegovina, Herzeg-Bosnia, Croatia, United States, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Republika Srpska, YPA, Serbian Krajina, Western Bosnia, and Federal Republic 1992-1995 Bosnian War of Yugoslavia Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Turkey, United 1998-1999 Kosovo Conflict/Kosovo War Kingdom, and United States United States, Afghanistan, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Italy, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Portugal, Albania, Taliban, 2001-2014 Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan War and al-Qaeda United States, Iraq, United Kingdom, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Australia, Operation Iraqi Freedom/Second Persian Gulf War/ Georgia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Spain, 2003-2011 Iraq War Denmark, and al-Qaeda Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com United States at War Years Name Parties Involved Israel (supported by United States) and 2006 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah (supported by Iran and Syria) Copyright © 2019 Homeschool Giveaways www.homeschoolgiveaways.com .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Exchange of Body Parts in the Pequot War
    meanes to "A knitt them togeather": The Exchange of Body Parts in the Pequot War Andrew Lipman was IN the early seventeenth century, when New England still very new, Indians and colonists exchanged many things: furs, beads, pots, cloth, scalps, hands, and heads. The first exchanges of body parts a came during the 1637 Pequot War, punitive campaign fought by English colonists and their native allies against the Pequot people. the war and other native Throughout Mohegans, Narragansetts, peoples one gave parts of slain Pequots to their English partners. At point deliv so eries of trophies were frequent that colonists stopped keeping track of to individual parts, referring instead the "still many Pequods' heads and Most accounts of the war hands" that "came almost daily." secondary as only mention trophies in passing, seeing them just another grisly were aspect of this notoriously violent conflict.1 But these incidents a in at the Andrew Lipman is graduate student the History Department were at a University of Pennsylvania. Earlier versions of this article presented graduate student conference at the McNeil Center for Early American Studies in October 2005 and the annual conference of the South Central Society for Eighteenth-Century comments Studies in February 2006. For their and encouragement, the author thanks James H. Merrell, David Murray, Daniel K. Richter, Peter Silver, Robert Blair St. sets George, and Michael Zuckerman, along with both of conference participants and two the anonymous readers for the William and Mary Quarterly. 1 to John Winthrop, The History ofNew England from 1630 1649, ed. James 1: Savage (1825; repr., New York, 1972), 237 ("still many Pequods' heads"); John Mason, A Brief History of the Pequot War: Especially Of the memorable Taking of their Fort atMistick in Connecticut In 1637 (Boston, 1736), 17 ("came almost daily").
    [Show full text]
  • Francis Wayland: Christian America-Liberal
    FRANCIS WAYLAND: CHRISTIAN AMERICA-LIBERAL AMERICA __________________________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri – Columbia _____________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________ By HOMER PAGE Dr. John Wigger, Dissertation Supervisor AUGUST 2008 © Copyright by Homer Page 2008 All Rights Reserved APPROVAL PAGE The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled FRANCIS WAYLAND: CHRISTIAN AMERICA-LIBERAL AMERICA presented by Homer Page, a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor John Wigger Professor Jeffery Pasley Professor Catherine Rymph Professor Theodore Koditschek Professor Brian Kierland DEDICATION For the two Angies, who are the lights of my life. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I take special pleasure in acknowledging the assistance that I have received in completing this project. After a career in higher education and local government, I retired and began working on a degree in history at the University of Missouri. My age – I was 63 when I started – was unusual, but I am also blind. Both the faculty with whom I worked and the UM support staff gave me the assistance and encouragement that made possible the research and analysis necessary to complete a dissertation. The people with whom I have worked at the University of Missouri are genuinely competent; but beyond that, they are thoroughly generous and kind. I am very happy to have this occasion to sincerely thank each of them. I had the good fortune to have the direction in my research of John Wigger, a fine scholar and a caring man.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorr Rebellion
    Rhode Island History Summer/Fall 2010 Volume 68, Number 2 Published by Contents The Rhode Island Historical Society 110 Benevolent Street Providence, Rhode Island 02906-3152 “The Rhode Island Question”: The Career of a Debate 47 Robert J. Manning, president William S. Simmons, first vice president Erik J. Chaput Barbara J. Thornton, second vice president Peter J. Miniati, treasurer Robert G. Flanders Jr., secretary Bernard P. Fishman, director No Landless Irish Need Apply: Rhode Island’s Role in the Framing and Fate Fellow of the Society of the Fifteenth Amendment 79 Glenn W. LaFantasie Patrick T. Conley Publications Committee Luther Spoehr, chair James Findlay Robert W. Hayman Index to Volume 68 91 Jane Lancaster J. Stanley Lemons Timothy More William McKenzie Woodward Staff Elizabeth C. Stevens, editor Hilliard Beller, copy editor Silvia Rees, publications assistant The Rhode Island Historical Society assumes no responsibility for the opinions of contributors. RHODE ISLAND HISTORY is published two times a year by the Rhode Island Historical Society at 110 Benevolent Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02906-3152. Postage is paid at Providence, Rhode Island. Society members receive each issue as a membership benefit. Institutional subscriptions to RHODE ISLAND HISTORY are $25.00 annually. Individual copies of current and back issues are available from the Society for $12.50 (price includes postage and handling). Manuscripts and other ©2010 by The Rhode Island Historical Society correspondence should be sent to Dr. Elizabeth C. Stevens, editor, at the RHODE ISLAND HISTORY (ISSN 0035-4619) Society or to [email protected]. Erik J. Chaput is a doctoral candidate in early American history at Syracuse Andrew Bourqe, Ashley Cataldo, and Elizabeth Pope, at the American University.
    [Show full text]
  • A Matter of Truth
    A MATTER OF TRUTH The Struggle for African Heritage & Indigenous People Equal Rights in Providence, Rhode Island (1620-2020) Cover images: African Mariner, oil on canvass. courtesy of Christian McBurney Collection. American Indian (Ninigret), portrait, oil on canvas by Charles Osgood, 1837-1838, courtesy of Massachusetts Historical Society Title page images: Thomas Howland by John Blanchard. 1895, courtesy of Rhode Island Historical Society Christiana Carteaux Bannister, painted by her husband, Edward Mitchell Bannister. From the Rhode Island School of Design collection. © 2021 Rhode Island Black Heritage Society & 1696 Heritage Group Designed by 1696 Heritage Group For information about Rhode Island Black Heritage Society, please write to: Rhode Island Black Heritage Society PO Box 4238, Middletown, RI 02842 RIBlackHeritage.org Printed in the United States of America. A MATTER OF TRUTH The Struggle For African Heritage & Indigenous People Equal Rights in Providence, Rhode Island (1620-2020) The examination and documentation of the role of the City of Providence and State of Rhode Island in supporting a “Separate and Unequal” existence for African heritage, Indigenous, and people of color. This work was developed with the Mayor’s African American Ambassador Group, which meets weekly and serves as a direct line of communication between the community and the Administration. What originally began with faith leaders as a means to ensure equitable access to COVID-19-related care and resources has since expanded, establishing subcommittees focused on recommending strategies to increase equity citywide. By the Rhode Island Black Heritage Society and 1696 Heritage Group Research and writing - Keith W. Stokes and Theresa Guzmán Stokes Editor - W.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranching Catalogue 
    Catalogue Ten –Part Four THE RANCHING CATALOGUE VOLUME TWO D-G Dorothy Sloan – Rare Books box 4825 ◆ austin, texas 78765-4825 Dorothy Sloan-Rare Books, Inc. Box 4825, Austin, Texas 78765-4825 Phone: (512) 477-8442 Fax: (512) 477-8602 Email: [email protected] www.sloanrarebooks.com All items are guaranteed to be in the described condition, authentic, and of clear title, and may be returned within two weeks for any reason. Purchases are shipped at custom- er’s expense. New customers are asked to provide payment with order, or to supply appropriate references. Institutions may receive deferred billing upon request. Residents of Texas will be charged appropriate state sales tax. Texas dealers must have a tax certificate on file. Catalogue edited by Dorothy Sloan and Jasmine Star Catalogue preparation assisted by Christine Gilbert, Manola de la Madrid (of the Autry Museum of Western Heritage), Peter L. Oliver, Aaron Russell, Anthony V. Sloan, Jason Star, Skye Thomsen & many others Typesetting by Aaron Russell Offset lithography by David Holman at Wind River Press Letterpress cover and book design by Bradley Hutchinson at Digital Letterpress Photography by Peter Oliver and Third Eye Photography INTRODUCTION here is a general belief that trail driving of cattle over long distances to market had its Tstart in Texas of post-Civil War days, when Tejanos were long on longhorns and short on cash, except for the worthless Confederate article. Like so many well-entrenched, traditional as- sumptions, this one is unwarranted. J. Evetts Haley, in editing one of the extremely rare accounts of the cattle drives to Califor- nia which preceded the Texas-to-Kansas experiment by a decade and a half, slapped the blame for this misunderstanding squarely on the writings of Emerson Hough.
    [Show full text]
  • War and Legitimacy: the Securement of Sovereignty in the Northwest Indian War
    i ABSTRACT WAR AND LEGITIMACY: THE SECUREMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE NORTHWEST INDIAN WAR During the post-revolution period, the newfound constitutional government of the United States faced a crisis of sovereignty and legitimacy. The Old Northwest region, encompassing what is now Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, was disputed between several groups. The U.S. government under George Washington claimed the region and sought to populate the land with white settlers, British officials in North America wished to reestablish British hegemony in the Ohio River valley and Native-Americans wished to protect their ancestral homeland from foreign invasion. In the 1790s, war broke out between a British backed alliance of Native tribes and the United States of America. Historians have named this conflict the Northwest Indian War. Examining government records, personal correspondences between Washington administration officials and military commanders, as well as recollections of soldiers, officials and civilians this thesis explores the geopolitical causes and ramifications of the Northwest Indian War. These sources demonstrate how the war was a reflection of a crisis which threatened the legitimacy to American sovereignty in the West. Furthermore, they also demonstrate how the use of a professional federal standing army was used by Washington’s government to secure American legitimacy. Michael Anthony Lipe August 2019 ii WAR AND LEGITIMACY: THE SECUREMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE NORTHWEST INDIAN WAR by Michael Anthony Lipe A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History in the College of Social Sciences California State University, Fresno August 2019 APPROVED For the Department of History: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Intimacy and Violence in New France: French and Indigenous Relations In
    Claiborne A. Skinner. The Upper Country: French Enterprise in the Colonial Great Lakes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. xiv + 202 pp. $25.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-8018-8838-0. Reviewed by Bryan Rindfleisch Published on H-Canada (November, 2011) Commissioned by Stephanie Bangarth (King's University College, UWO) Claiborne A. Skinner offers a concise synthe‐ and downturns that rendered any imperial plan‐ sis for the history of the “French Middle West,” or ning utterly useless and forced the French in New France, during the seventeenth and eigh‐ North America to rely on the everyday interac‐ teenth centuries. Largely aimed at diffusing the tions and relations forged with their Native Amer‐ “popular myths” surrounding French colonization ican neighbors as a means for stability in the ab‐ in the Great Lakes region that revolves around sence of support from the imperial metropolis.[1] the benevolent Jesuit missionary and heroic fur In fact, Skinner suggests that this intimacy be‐ trade trapper carving out a French empire in tween the French and Great Lakes Indians (the North America while enjoying harmonious rela‐ Huron, Ojibwe, Illiniwek, Ottawa, Potawatomi, tions with indigenous peoples, Skinner instead Fox, Saux, Menominee, etc.) proved to be the only posits the imperial designs of the French in Cana‐ sustainable feature of the French North American da and the Illinois country as violent and factious, empire, and that when this coalition disintegrated and a site of constant negotiation and conflict during the eighteenth century, so too did New with other Europeans, native populaces, and even France, largely as a product of intertribal Indian the varying factions of the French themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • The Frontiers of American Grand Strategy: Settlers, Elites, and the Standing Army in America’S Indian Wars
    THE FRONTIERS OF AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY: SETTLERS, ELITES, AND THE STANDING ARMY IN AMERICA’S INDIAN WARS A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Andrew Alden Szarejko, M.A. Washington, D.C. August 11, 2020 Copyright 2020 by Andrew Alden Szarejko All Rights Reserved ii THE FRONTIERS OF AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY: SETTLERS, ELITES, AND THE STANDING ARMY IN AMERICA’S INDIAN WARS Andrew Alden Szarejko, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Andrew O. Bennett, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Much work on U.S. grand strategy focuses on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. If the United States did have a grand strategy before that, IR scholars often pay little attention to it, and when they do, they rarely agree on how best to characterize it. I show that federal political elites generally wanted to expand the territorial reach of the United States and its relative power, but they sought to expand while avoiding war with European powers and Native nations alike. I focus on U.S. wars with Native nations to show how domestic conditions created a disjuncture between the principles and practice of this grand strategy. Indeed, in many of America’s so- called Indian Wars, U.S. settlers were the ones to initiate conflict, and they eventually brought federal officials into wars that the elites would have preferred to avoid. I develop an explanation for settler success and failure in doing so. I focus on the ways that settlers’ two faits accomplis— the act of settling on disputed territory without authorization and the act of initiating violent conflict with Native nations—affected federal decision-making by putting pressure on speculators and local elites to lobby federal officials for military intervention, by causing federal officials to fear that settlers would create their own states or ally with foreign powers, and by eroding the credibility of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • (King Philip's War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Connecticut Unscathed: Victory in The Great Narragansett War (King Philip’s War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Major Jason W. Warren, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: John F. Guilmartin Jr., Advisor Alan Gallay, Kristen Gremillion Peter Mansoor, Geoffrey Parker Copyright by Jason W. Warren 2011 Abstract King Philip’s War (1675-1676) was one of the bloodiest per capita in American history. Although hostile native groups damaged much of New England, Connecticut emerged unscathed from the conflict. Connecticut’s role has been obscured by historians’ focus on the disasters in the other colonies as well as a misplaced emphasis on “King Philip,” a chief sachem of the Wampanoag groups. Although Philip formed the initial hostile coalition and served as an important leader, he was later overshadowed by other sachems of stronger native groups such as the Narragansetts. Viewing the conflict through the lens of a ‘Great Narragansett War’ brings Connecticut’s role more clearly into focus, and indeed enables a more accurate narrative for the conflict. Connecticut achieved success where other colonies failed by establishing a policy of moderation towards the native groups living within its borders. This relationship set the stage for successful military operations. Local native groups, whether allied or neutral did not assist hostile Indians, denying them the critical intelligence necessary to coordinate attacks on Connecticut towns. The English colonists convinced allied Mohegan, Pequot, and Western Niantic warriors to support their military operations, giving Connecticut forces a decisive advantage in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • William Bradford Makes His First Substantial
    Ed The Pequot Conspirator White William Bradford makes his first substantial ref- erence to the Pequots in his account of the 1628 Plymouth Plantation, in which he discusses the flourishing of the “wampumpeag” (wam- pum) trade: [S]trange it was to see the great alteration it made in a few years among the Indians themselves; for all the Indians of these parts and the Massachusetts had none or very little of it, but the sachems and some special persons that wore a little of it for ornament. Only it was made and kept among the Narragansetts and Pequots, which grew rich and potent by it, and these people were poor and beggarly and had no use of it. Neither did the English of this Plantation or any other in the land, till now that they had knowledge of it from the Dutch, so much as know what it was, much less that it was a com- modity of that worth and value.1 Reading these words, it might seem that Bradford’s understanding of Native Americans has broadened since his earlier accounts of “bar- barians . readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise.”2 Could his 1620 view of them as undifferentiated, arrow-hurtling sav- ages have been superseded by one that allowed for the economically complex diversity of commodity-producing traders? If we take Brad- ford at his word, the answer is no. For “Indians”—the “poor and beg- garly” creatures Bradford has consistently described—remain present in this description but are now joined by a different type of being who have been granted proper names, are “rich and potent” compared to “Indians,” and are perhaps superior to the English in mastering the American Literature, Volume 81, Number 3, September 2009 DOI 10.1215/00029831-2009-022 © 2009 by Duke University Press Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article-pdf/81/3/439/392273/AL081-03-01WhiteFpp.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 440 American Literature economic lay of the land.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mckee Treaty of 1790: British-Aboriginal Diplomacy in the Great Lakes
    The McKee Treaty of 1790: British-Aboriginal Diplomacy in the Great Lakes A thesis submitted to the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfilment of the requirements for MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN Saskatoon by Daniel Palmer Copyright © Daniel Palmer, September 2017 All Rights Reserved Permission to Use In presenting this thesis/dissertation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis/dissertation in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis/dissertation work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis/dissertation or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis/dissertation. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis/dissertation in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of History HUMFA Administrative Support Services Room 522, Arts Building University of Saskatchewan 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5 i Abstract On the 19th of May, 1790, the representatives of four First Nations of Detroit and the British Crown signed, each in their own custom, a document ceding 5,440 square kilometers of Aboriginal land to the Crown that spring for £1200 Quebec Currency in goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Invoking Authority in the Chickasaw Nation, 1783–1795
    "To Treat with All Nations": Invoking Authority in the Chickasaw Nation, 1783–1795 Jason Herbert Ohio Valley History, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2018, pp. 27-44 (Article) Published by The Filson Historical Society and Cincinnati Museum Center For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/689417 [ Access provided at 26 Sep 2021 02:59 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] “To Treat with All Nations” Invoking Authority in the Chickasaw Nation, 1783–1795 Jason Herbert gulayacabé was furious in the fall of 1796. Like many Chickasaws, he was stunned to learn of the recent treaty between the United States and Spain, which now jeopardized his nation’s sovereignty. The deal, Uwhich gave the Americans navigation rights to the Mississippi River and drew a new border along the 31st parallel, was the culmination of constant jockey- ing between the empires over land and trade routes in the Southeast since the American Revolution. However, the Treaty of San Lorenzo (also called Pinckney’s Treaty) was little different from other imperial pacts in that American Indians were not invited to the table. Nevertheless, the pact meant relations in Indian country were to be amended. At a meeting at San Fernando de las Barrancas (present-day Memphis), Ugulayacabé railed against his Spanish friends. “We see that our Father not only abandons us like small animals to the claws of tigers and the jaws of wolves.” The United States’ proclamations of friendship, he contin- ued, were like “the rattlesnake that caresses the squirrel in order to devour it.”1 Of course, not everyone shared Ugulayacabé’s frustrations.
    [Show full text]