Acfaucquez.files.wordpress.com



II The Native Americans>>> Paradox of American expansion and “exceptionalism”: in the American collective imaginary, the continent is an empty space, there is nothing but virgin land >>> Indians are seen as intruders one had to get rid off. There are over 500?federally recognized tribes?within the US. The term "American Indian" (as defined by the US Census) excludes?Native Hawaiians? being called "Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander".From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the population of Indians sharply declined. It is difficult to estimate the number of pre-Columbian Native Americans who were living in what is today the United States of America. Estimates range from a low of 2.1 million to a high of 18 million. By 1800, the Native population of the present-day United States had declined to approximately 600,000, and only 250,000 Native Americans remained in the 1890s. The population of California Indians was reduced by 90% during the 19th century—from more than 200,000 in the early 19th century to approximately 15,000 at the end of the centuryAmong the various contributing factors?epidemic?disease?was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the Native Americans because of their lack of?immunity?to new diseases brought from Europe.?Chicken pox?and?measles,?endemic?but rarely fatal among Europeans (long after being introduced from Asia), often proved deadly to Native Americans. In the 100 years following the arrival of the Spanish to the Americas, large disease epidemics depopulated large parts of the eastern United States in the 16th century.[ There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread among Native Americans as a form of?biological warfare. The most well-known example occurred in 1763, when Sir?Jeffery Amherst,?Commander-in-Chief of the Forces?of the?British Army, wrote praising the use of smallpox-infected blankets to "extirpate" the Indian race. Blankets infected with smallpox were given to Native Americans?besieging Fort Pitt. The effectiveness of the attempt is unclear. The?French and Indian War?(1754–63) pitted the English, allied with the Iroquois Confederacy, against a much larger?coalition?comprising many Algonquian-speaking tribes, the French, and the Spanish. Most of the fighting occurred in the?Ohio River?watershed and the?Great Lakes?region. Surprisingly, given their smaller numbers, the Iroquois-English alliance prevailed. Under the terms of the?Treaty of Paris?(1763), France ceded to England its colonies east of the?Mississippi River. England now ruled a vast landmass reaching from?Hudson Bay?to the?Gulf of Mexico?and from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi River.Treaties at this time generally transferred?sovereignty?over a territory from one monarch to another but did not dispossess locals of their property nor?abrogate?prior agreements between monarch and subject. Categories of people were seen as rather interchangeable—if the?sovereign?(in this case, of France) had made a promise to subjects in a territory that was to become the domain of another monarch (in this case, of England), the latter was expected to honour the arrangement. The subjects living in the region, here the native and colonial peoples of?New France, were likewise expected to transfer their loyalty from the first monarch to the second. Although European and Euro-American colonists were accustomed to having no voice in such matters, the region’s indigenous residents objected to being treated as subjects rather than nations; not having been party to the treaty, they felt little need to honour it.For the colonizers, the?war?ended with the?Peace of Paris?(1783). The?treaties?between?England?and the new?United States?included the English cession of the lands south of the?St. Lawrence River?and the Great Lakes and as far west as the?Mississippi River. The?indigenousnations?were not consulted regarding this cession, which placed those Iroquois who had been allied with the English loyalists in what was now U.S.?territory. Realizing that remaining in the territory would expose them to?retribution, several thousand members of the?Iroquois-English?alliance?left their homes and resettled in Canada.Northwest Ordinances?(1787):The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians, their lands and?property?shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by?Congress; but laws founded in?justice?and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.By 1808–10, despite?assurances?from the U.S. government that the?Proclamation of 1763?would be honoured, settlers had overrun the valleys of the?Ohio?and?Illinois rivers.East of the Mississippi River, an intertribal army led by?Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief, fought a number of engagements in the Northwest during the period 1811–12, known as?Tecumseh's War. During the?War of 1812, Tecumseh's forces allied themselves with the British. After Tecumseh's death, the British ceased to aid the Native Americans.After the Louisiana Purchase, the Indian Policy combined 2 approaches:removal westward by voluntary exchange of land codified by treatiesabsorption without removal for those who accepted: 1819: Civilization Act = provided missionaries, schools...Tracing the path of Manifest Destiny across the West would highlight mass destruction of tribal organizations, confinement of Indians to reservations, and full-blown genocide. The dark side of Manifest Destiny revealed the white man's belief that his settlement of the land and civilization of its native peoples was preordained.>>> progressive shift to a voluntary removalWithin a few decades this guarantee of legal, political, and?property rights?was undermined by a series of?Supreme Court?decisions and the passage of a new federal law.The rulings in question were written by Chief Justice?John Marshall. In?Johnson?v.?M’Intosh?(1823), the court ruled that European doctrine gave a “discovering” (e.g., colonial) power and its successors the?exclusive?right to purchase land from aboriginal nations. This ruling removed control of land transactions from the?tribes, which had previously been able to sell to whomever they wished. The Cherokees were a particular tribe: they had become cultivators with permanent property, possessed slaves, had established their own system of government with a Constitution (since 1827), their own schools and courts and written culture.1824: the administration decided that Indians were incapable of civilization and were doomed to extinguish if they remained in contact with whites1821: Conflict between Georgia and the Federal gvt>>> Ga had promised it would renounce its claims on Western lands if the Federal gvt would destroy Indian land within the state of GA>>> claim supported by other Southern states which protested that “incorporating Indians would disturb the social hierarchy, putting them in an intermediate position between the whites and the negroes”1830: Removal Bill (Jackson) : 1828 discovery of?gold?on?Cherokee?land in?Georgia. Speculators hoping to profit from the discovery, including President?Andrew Jackson, subsequently pressured?Congress?to find a way to legally?divest?the tribe of its land. Jackson’s speech?On Indian Removal, presented to Congress in December 1830, provides a sample, although certainly not a full account, of his rationalizations for such action.The Indians would be removed West of the Mississippi and incorporated into a separate territory to be civilized in a kind of protected environment.Jackson in his 2nd message to Congress argued Providence had decreed Indians should yield their unused land to those who had filled the country with “all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion”>>> Debates in Congress revealed the growing prevalence of racial arguments.The?Indian Removal Act?enabled the president to designate tracts of land west of the?Mississippi?as new Indian Territories, to negotiate with tribes to effect their removal from east of the Mississippi, and to fund these transactions and associated?transportation?costs. The Native American population had not been consulted in these matters and responded in a variety of ways:-?Black Hawk?led the?Sauk?and?Fox?in defending their territory; the Cherokee pursued resolution through the courts; - the?Choctaw?agreed to arrange a departure plan with the designated federal authorities; and - the?Chickasaw?gained permission to sell their property and arrange their own transportation to points west. - Perhaps the most determined to remain in place were the?Seminoles, who fiercely defended their homes; the?Seminole Wars?(1817–18, 1835–42, and 1855–58) came to be the most expensive military actions undertaken by the U.S.?government?up to that point.>>>Indians resisted appropriation of their lands >>> many violent wars occurred >>> Proof that Indians were “demons, not men” and that a clash between races was soon to come.1831: Cherokee nation appealed to the Supreme Court which stated in Cherokee Nation vs Georgia decision that the political?autonomy?of indigenous polities was inherently reliant on the federal?government, defining them as domestic (dependent) nations rather than foreign (independent) nations. This status prevented tribes from?invoking?a number of privileges reserved to foreign powers, such as suing the United States in the Supreme Court.1832 Worcester vs Georgia decision: ruled that Indian nations were “separate political entities” and the the gvt of Ga could only enter their territory by authorization or treaty >>> Prst Jackson refused to enforce it.only the federal government, not the states, had the right to impose their regulations on Indian land. This created an important precedent through which tribes could, like states, reserve some areas of political autonomy.?1838: the forced removal of Southern tribes to what is now Oklahoma escorted by the Federal army was known as the Trail of Tears>>> Indians lost 2/3 of their tribal lands4,000 dedIn the decade after 1830, almost the entire U.S.?population?of perhaps 100,000 eastern Indians—including nearly every nation from the Northeast and Southeast culture areas—moved westward, whether voluntarily or by force.?In 1848 the?Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?granted the?United States all of?Mexico’s territories north of the Rio Grande (see?Mexican-American War); in the same year,?gold?was discovered in?California. Thousands of miners and settlers streamed westward on the?Oregon Trail?and other routes, crossing over and hunting on indigenous land without asking leave or paying tribute. From the resident nations’ perspective, these people were trespassers and poachers, although their presence was somewhat?ameliorated?by the goods and services they purchased from the tribes. Contrary to their frequent portrayal in 20th-century popular culture, few armed conflicts between travelers and Indians took place, although tense situations certainly occurred. These circumstances moved the U.S. government to initiate a series of treaties through which to pacify the trans-Mississippi west. Perhaps the most important of these was the First?Treaty of Fort Laramie?(1851), which was negotiated with the?Arapaho,?Arikara,?Assiniboin,?Blackfoot,?Cheyenne,?Crow, >>> it explicitly defined the home territories of each of these peoples, disputes over which had fostered intertribal conflict. + It also gave the United States the right to build and protect roads through the Plains. In return, the United States agreed to provide a variety of goods and services to the tribes.In the first three decades following the 1848?gold strike, for example, California’s Native American population declined from between 100,000 and 150,000—a figure already depleted by the decades of poor conditions the “novitiates” had experienced at the hands of Spanish missionaries and businessmen—to perhaps 15,000 individuals. In 1850 the?California?legislature legalized the de facto?slavery?of indigenous individuals by allowing Euro-American men to declare them “vagrant” and to bind such “vagrants” by indenture. Thousands of people were enslaved under this statute, and many died of maltreatment. Between 1851 and 1857 the state legislature also authorized some $1.5 million for reimbursement to private individuals who quelled native “hostilities”; most of these private expeditions were little more than shooting sprees and slave raids against peaceful indigenous settlements.The?Indian Appropriations Act?of 1851 set the precedent for modern-day Native American reservations through allocating funds to move western tribes onto reservations since there were no more lands available for relocation.Native Americans served in both the?Union?and?Confederate?military during the?American Civil War. At the outbreak of the war, for example, the minority party of the?Cherokees?gave its allegiance to the Confederacy, while originally the majority party went for the North. A few Native American tribes, such as the Creek and the Choctaw, were slaveholders and found a political and economic commonality with the Confederacy. The Choctaw owned over 2,000 slaves.Native Americans fought knowing they might jeopardize their independence, unique cultures, and ancestral lands if they ended up on the losing side of the Civil War. 28,693 Native Americans served in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War,? During?the?American Civil War?(1861–65), conflicts in the Plains increased and included two of the worst interethnic atrocities of 19th-century America: - the?Sioux Uprising?(1862), in which?Indian warriors killed some 400 settlers in?Minnesota, many of whom were women and children- the?Sand Creek Massacre (1864), in which members of the?Colorado?militia killed at least 150 and perhaps as many as 500 people, mostly women and children, at a?Cheyenne?village known to be peaceable.As the Civil War ended, increasing numbers of U.S. troops were sent to pacify the North American interior. The federal?government?also began to develop the policies that eventually confined the nations of the West to?reservations, and to pursue treaties with Native American polities. These agreements generally committed tribes to land cessions, in exchange for which the United States promised to designate specific areas for exclusive indigenous use and to provide tribes with annual payments (annuities)?comprising?cash,?livestock, supplies, and services.With the passage of the?Indian Appropriation Act (1871), it was declared that “hereafter no Indian nation or tribe” would be recognized “as an independent power with whom the United States may contract by treaty.” Indian affairs were thus brought under the legislative control of the?Congress?to a much greater extent than previously. The act ended the government’s treaty-making process and the practice of acknowledging tribes as sovereign nations. It also signaled the start of official Indian assimilation policies.In 1868, President?Ulysses S. Grant?supervised the development of millions of acres of federal public lands and presided over the private acquisition of land by pioneers, spectators and railroad and mining companies.Yet Grant realized that his expansionist goals required the removal of Indians from desirable land. “No matter what ought to be the relations between such settlements and the aborigines, the fact is they do not harmonize well, and one or the other has to give way in the end,”. Grant viewed his policy as an alternative to violence. As Indians and settlers clashed over a decreasing expanse of land, Grant’s plan to assimilate Indians into white culture came as a “moral” solution to a centuries-old problem. Need for Natives to assimilate, to retreat to reservations and become more like white Americans = cultural genocide.The policy called for the replacement of government officials by religious men, nominated by churches, to oversee the Indian agencies on reservations in order to teach?Christianity?to the native tribes. Enforcement of the policy required the?United States Army?to restrict the movements of various tribes. The pursuit of tribes in order to force them back onto reservations led to a number of wars with Native Americans which included some massacres. The most well-known conflict was the?Sioux War?on the northern?Great Plains, between 1876 and 1881, which included the?Battle of Little Bighorn when General?George Armstrong Custer troops fell at the hands of Chief?Sitting Bull?and his warriors. The Sioux’s victory was short-lived, however, as the tribe was defeated a year later.Custer’s mission had been to remove these people (several hundred in all) to their reservations, and he had intended to forcibly capture or kill every member of the?community, including women, children, the aged, and the infirm, in order to do so. With the exception of a small group of soldiers led by Maj. Marcus Reno, who were trapped under fire on a hill, Custer and his troops were completely?annihilated. Unfortunately for the western nations, this event—and particularly Elizabeth Custer’s decades-long promotion of her husband’s death as an atrocity, despite his status as a recognized combatant—spawned a prolonged media sensation that reignited the United States’ commitment to complete?hegemony?over Native America.In 1877, the U.S. Army fought the?Nez Percé?tribe in the Pacific Northwest when Chief Joseph, refused to relinquish their lands to white settlers. They were eventually defeated and resettled in Kansas. In the New Mexico Territory, the?Apache?tribe, led by?Geronimo, fought bravely to protect their homelands but were eventually defeated in 1886 and relocated to Oklahoma and rural areas of the South. Hundreds of Native Americans also died at the?Battle Of Wounded Knee?in?1890, during the army’s attempt to end the?Ghost Dance Movement—a Native American movement that called for a return to traditional ways of life and challenged white dominance in society. On December 29 at Wounded Knee, gunfire erupted, and U.S. soldiers (Custer’s regiment reconstituted) killed up to 300 Indians, mostly old men, women, and children.Although this massacre marked the effective end of native military resistance in the western?United States,?tribes?and individuals continued to resist conquest in a variety of other ways.By the late 1870s, the policy established by President Grant was regarded as a failure, primarily because it had resulted in some of the bloodiest wars between Native Americans and the United States. After the Indian wars in the late 19th century, the government established?Native American boarding schools, initially run primarily by or affiliated with Christian missionaries. ?At this time, American society thought that Native American children needed to be acculturated to the general society. The boarding school experience was a total immersion in modern American society, but it could prove traumatic to children, who were forbidden to speak their?native languages. They were taught Christianity and not allowed to practice their native religions, and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their Native American identities. The Carlisle Indian Industrial School, founded by the Civil War Lieutenant?Richard Henry Pratt?in 1879 at a former military installation, became a model for others established by the?Bureau of Indian Affairs?(BIA). The Carlisle Indian Industrial School forced assimilation to Christian culture and lose their Native American traditions, as demonstrated by their motto, “Kill the Indian, Save the Man.” Pratt said in a speech in 1892, "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead."?Pratt professed "assimilation through total immersion.Expressing similar anti-Indian sentiment,?Theodore Roosevelt?believed the Indians were destined to vanish under the pressure of white civilization, stating in an 1886 lecture:I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.In 1887, Congress undertook a significant change in reservation policy by the passage of the?Dawes Act, or General Allotment (Severalty) Act. The act ended the general policy of granting land parcels to tribes as-a-whole by granting small parcels of land to individual tribe members. The Dawes Act outlawed tribal ownership of land and forced?160-acre homesteads into the hands of individual Indians and their families with the promise of future citizenship (on the poorest land in the Dakotas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma). The goal was to assimilate Native Americans into white culture as quickly as possible. As it turned out, the Dawes Act succeeded only in stripping tribes of their land and failed to incorporate Native Americans into U.S. society. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download