The Wild Frontier (2 page)
Authors: William M. Osborn
Brian W. Dippie, in
The Vanishing American
, summarized the important east-west division of opinion about the Indians:
So vivid was the contrast between eastern and western attitudes that few writers on the Indian question failed to mention it. One experienced observer pictured the states “divided into two great parties, one crying for blood, and demanding the destruction of the Indians, the other begging that he may be left in his aboriginal condition, and that the progress of civilization may be stayed.” Their views, another writer
noted, were conditioned “by contact, cupidity and prejudice, on the one hand; and enthusiasm, benevolence and remoteness, on the other.” The pertinent point was that easterners had solved their problem by moving the Indians out of the way, and had “long since forgotten the savage war whoop”; while in the West, “the Indian question is a live question,” men live “in constant danger,” and their “only appellation” for the Indians is “red devils.”
4
The
Times
pointed out that “contemporary treatment of Indians in the West simply paralleled what had begun on the East Coast a century ago.”
5
F
ROM THE
beginning of the European invasion of the New World, those attempting to exploit the Indians claimed that they “were not normal people but rather members of a subhuman or animal species, lacking souls.”
6
The first settlers were English for the most part, and a flood of reports from the New World presented a grim picture of what they might encounter. Gary B. Nash gave one example in
Red, White, and Black:
Crafty, brutal, loathsome half-men whose cannibalistic instincts were revealed, as one pamphleteer wrote in 1578, by the fact that “there is no flesh or fishe, which they finde dead, (smell it never so filthily) but they will eate it, as they finde it, without any other dressing [cooking].”
7
Other more dread aspects of Indian conduct circulated among settlers before they left their ships, according to Michael Kraus in
The United States to 1865:
The “noble savage” had, however, a terrifying aspect also; stories were told of how he attacked in the dead of night with blood-curdling yells, how he set houses afire with flaming arrows, and how he scalped the fleeing inhabitants. There were horrifying narratives, too, of cannibalism told with all the grisly details. The earliest settlers, leaving the comparative safety of their ships, were understandably fearful about the reception that awaited them.
8
But as Page Smith pointed out in
A New Age Now Begins
, there was another view vying for settlers’ consideration, that of Voltaire and Rousseau, whose philosophy was so important to the framers of the
Constitution of the United States, but who had never been to the New World. These philosophers romanticized the Indians, whom they saw as being natural men:
The European mind was captivated by the idea of the noble savage as it had been by few ideas in its history. Both Voltaire and Rousseau, philosophers who nurtured the Enlightenment, saw society as corrupt and decadent, far removed from the wholesomeness and simplicity of the natural man. They romanticized the savage man, whom they saw as being close to nature, his intelligence unclouded by priestly superstition, by social conventions, fashion, greed, and ambition.
9
The settlers were thus faced with strongly conflicting attitudes toward Indians. They chose to emigrate in great numbers. Why would they continue if these terrible stories were true?
I
NDEED, THEY
lived in relative peace with the Indians for almost 15 years from their arrival at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607 and Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, although there were skirmishes. Then attitudes changed dramatically with the Powhatan Wars, which also were the beginning of the American-Indian War. In 1621, before war had even commenced, a Virginia poet wrote that Indians were irrevocably “Rooted in Evill, and opposed in Good; errors of nature, of inhumane Birth, The very dregs, garbage and spanne of Earth.”
10
Opechancanough became the dominant leader of the powerful Powhatan Confederacy in 1618. He attacked Jamestown and other settlements on the James River in 1622 without warning, killing hundreds.
11
After that, according to Roy Harvey Pearce in
The Savages of America
, the settlers “ceased trying to understand the Indian; for such understanding would avail them little.”
12
And in retaliation for the massacres noted, Bernard W. Sheehan in
Seeds of Extinction
said, “the Virginians followed a policy of extermination.”
13
The Indian attitude toward the settlers hardened as well.
When the administrators of the Virginia Company protested that the colonists had gone too far in dealing with the Indians following the 1622 attack, the Virginia Council of State replied that
wee hold nothing inuiste [unjust] … that may tend to theire ruine…. Stratagems were ever allowed against all enemies, but with these neither fayre Warr nor good quarter is ever to be held, nor is there other hope of their subversione, who ever may inform you to the Contrarié.
14
This was about as bad as settler attitudes could get.
The American-Indian War—rightly characterized by Bil Gilbert in
God Gave Us This Country
—was one of
unique ferocity…. Generally the antagonists believed that this was a winner-take-all competition, that compromise and accommodation were neither possible nor desirable…. The savages—red and white-did things to each other which sensitive outsiders found unbelievable.
15
That ferocity surely arose out of the 2 parties’ conflicting cultures and characters involved, a principal theme of this book.
T
O THE
north, the attitude of the Massachusetts colonists toward Indians was much the same. William Bradford was governor of the Plymouth colony from 1621 until 1656 except for the years Edward Wins-low served. He maintained peaceful relations with the Wampanoags, but made war on the Pequot.
16
Bradford wrote in his history of the colony that the English had come expecting the “continual danger of the savage people, who are cruel, barbarous, and most treacherous,” which made “the very bowels of men to grate within them and make the weak to quake and tremble.”
17
The Reverend Cotton Mather, who was influential in Massachusetts Bay Colony government, believed it was futile to attempt to Christianize and civilize Indians. He contended they were sent to North America by Satan and should therefore be exterminated.
18
Mather preached after the Indians were defeated in a battle of the Pequot War that “in a little more than one hour, five or six hundred of these barbarians were dismissed from a world that was burdened with them.”
19
B
EFORE THE
Revolutionary War started (1775-83), Prime Minister North in Parliament tried to defend use of Indians as British allies. Opposition leader Lord Chatham called Indians scalpers, cannibal savages, roasting and eating, torturing, murderous barbarians, and savage hellhounds,
20
statements not likely to improve settler attitudes. The war itself only aggravated settler feelings against the Indians. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, declared that one of the charges against King George III was that he “had endeavored 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.”
English governor William Tryon urged the British ministry to “loose the savages against the miserable Rebels in order to impose a reign of terror on the frontiers.”
21
It was done. There were depredations by Indians against settlers that had far-ranging effects. Scars were left by the Revolution which led to atrocious conduct by the settlers.
O
NLY
4 D
AYS
after the Revolution ended, George Washington wrote to James Duane outlining a policy of purchasing land occupied by Indians instead of seizing it:
I am clear in my opinion, that policy and oeconomy
[sic]
point very strongly to the expediency of being on good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing their Lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force of arms out of the Country; which as we have already experienced is like driving the Wild Beasts of the Forest which will return as soon as the pursuit is at an end and fall perhaps on those that are left there; when the gradual extension of our Settlements will as certainly cause the Savage as the Wolf to retire; both being beasts of prey tho’ they differ in shape. In a word there is nothing to be obtained by an Indian War but the Soil they live on and this can be had by purchase at less expense, and without that bloodshed, and those distresses which helpless Women and Children are made partakers of in all kinds of disputes with them.
22
Secretary of War Henry Knox also opposed taking by force the lands acquired from England that were occupied by Indians.
23
He also believed that the view of many contending it impracticable to civilize the Indians was “probably more convenient than just.”
24
Even at this early date and so soon after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, a high government official was concerned about justice for the Indians. However, that same year, Knox took Washington’s idea of buying land occupied by Indians several steps further. He foresaw that if the settlers would approach the Indian land and drive the game away, making the land less valuable to the Indians, they would be willing to sell cheaply, and they would be reduced to a very small number.
25
Washington’s attitude toward the Indians changed dramatically, however, after the embarrassing victory of the Miamis and their allies in 1790 over General Josiah Harmar’s army, which Washington had sent to the Northwest Territory to pacify the Indians. Washington no longer
talked about peacefully occupying the West. He now decided that the Indians must be punished severely in order to defend the frontier and national honor. He sent General Arthur St. Clair to fight the Miami allies, but St. Clair was even more roundly beaten by the Indians in 1791.
26
After the Miami allies were finally defeated by General Anthony Wayne in 1794, however, the government “adopted a relatively conciliatory policy in its dealings with the natives. Government officials could afford to be benign” because control over the Northwest Territory had been established and settlers’ hunger for land in that area had been satisfied temporarily.
27
Washington then followed the policy formulated by Secretary of War Henry Knox, which recognized the Indians’ claim to the land they occupied and denied that the government was entitled to that land by the right of conquest. He shared Knox’s view that the government’s authority over land occupied by the Indians consisted only of the exclusive right to negotiate with Indians for its purchase. Washington also started the practice of meeting with delegations of tribal leaders.
28
B
EFORE HE
became president, Thomas Jefferson supported military actions against Indians. As president, he was the first to advocate removal of the tribes to the West as a solution to the conflict between Indians and settlers. He proposed locating settlers as near to tribal areas as possible, hoping to impede the Indians’ hunting-based culture. Jefferson also believed that if Indians could be protected from white civilization for a period of at least 50 years, that might be enough time for assimilation. He regarded the Indians as noble savages.
29
But after he had left office, Jefferson changed his views about the Indians. He came to believe that “ferocious barbarities justified extermination.”
30
The transformation was startling. It came about, of course, because of the atrocities.
President James Madison reported in his first annual message to Congress in 1809 that “our Indian neighbors” had remained at peace.
31
War with Britain was approaching again, however, and in 1811 Madison’s attention was drawn to the Indian murders and depredations on the northwest frontier.
32
On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Britain. Several tribes fought with the British, so Madison announced that “the hand of friendship, extended in vain, was now withdrawn.”
33
In 1815, after the war was over, Madison was “happy” to report that tranquility had been restored in the northwest and that “our Indian neighbors” were back in the government’s good graces.
34
But the War of 1812 “had permanently altered Indian-white relations in North America.” Furthermore, according to Dippie, “by siding with the British, the ungrateful Indians had forfeited any claim to sympathy. The country owed them nothing; its sense of fair play was now their sole protection.”
35
Novelist Washington Irving wrote in 1814 that there was a hardening of “popular feeling” toward the Indian. He urged restraint, a view not held by many settlers at that time.
36
President James Monroe declared in his first inaugural address in 1817 that “with the Indian tribes it is our duty to cultivate friendly relations and to act with kindness and liberality in all our transactions. Equally proper is it to persevere in our efforts to extend to them the advantages of civilization.” The concept of “cultivating friendly relations” with Indians seems to have disappeared by 1818, however, when President Monroe wanted to take “complete and undisputed control” over them. But 3 years later, he was talking about “real benefactors” and “Great Father” ideas.
S
OME SETTLERS
viewed Indians as wild animals. After the settler murderers of 9 Indians in Indiana were apprehended in 1824, their defense was that it was “no worse to kill an Indian than to kill a wild animal.”
37
Similarly, Helen Hunt Jackson in
A Century of Dishonor
told how around 1878 in Dakota County, Winnebago Henry Harris, who was employed to cut wood, was shot through the heart. Harris had had several disputes with a white man named D. Balinska, and Balinska had threatened Harris’s life a few months before. Investigators found footprints in the snow leading from Balinska’s home to the place from where the shot was fired. The rifle ball which killed Harris was the same weight as one found in Balinska’s shot pouch. The grand jury was unwilling to indict for the apparent reason “that it was only an Indian that was killed.”
38
