com

Sunil Santoni-de-Reddy

December 2002

Natives Forced into Battle

When European fleets arrived on Native American land, territory which would ultimately become the United States, conflict erupted as a result of opposing views held by the Native people and the European invaders. While many Native Americans generally wished to peacefully coexist with the colonists, the white man wished to take over all of the Native land. The avarice resulting from the white man’s desire for land and the implementation of violence as a means to obtain this land were the driving forces behind the Native people’s reversal of policy from willed nonviolence to necessary retaliation.

When Europeans colonized the land belonging to the indigenous Native people they justified their actions believing that they were bringing civilization to a world of savages. In 1870, Columbus Delano, Department of the Interior Secretary, justified the usurpation of Native American land in the following:

In our intercourse with the Indians it must always be borne in mind that we are the most powerful party… We are assuming, and I think with propriety, that our civilization ought to take the place of their barbarous habits. We therefore claim the right to control the soil they occupy, and we assume that it is our duty to coerce them, if necessary, into the adoption and practice of our habits and customs (Haley, Doc. 20).

Delano acknowledged that the white man had a power that could be exercised over the Native Americans; they had stronger forces of men and efficient weaponry which the Natives could not defend themselves against. Therefore, the colonists took advantage of the Native Americans’ vulnerability under the belief that Western European skill and education could be shared with the indigenous people; ultimately, they expected Natives to assimilate to the white lifestyle which began to dominate the newly acquired European land.

The white men did not maintain friendly relations with their hosts as they settled on Native American territories. William Tecumseh Sherman, a Commander of the Division of the Mississippi, acknowledged to Native people that “we will be kind to you if you keep the peace, but if you won’t listen to reason we are ordered to make war upon you in a different manner from what we have done before.” Sherman stated a year earlier that the white men “…must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children” (Lewis, Doc. 19). Thus, the foreign invaders were willing to be kind as long as the Natives complied with their plans. The white men were driven by greed to inhabit the land as well as control it, and they were able to successfully threaten war because they knew that the Native Americans were not equipped to fight against the European forces. Francisco Pizarro similarly delivered a mandate to an Inca ambassador in 1527 revealing the white men’s intent to secure the Native people’s land in the name of the European Church. Pizarro claimed that if the Natives did not comply with the rules established by the white man, “with the help of God I shall come mightily against you, and I shall make war upon you everywhere and in everyway that I can… I shall do all the evil and damage to you that I am able. And I insist that the deaths and destruction that result from this will be your fault” (Chamberlain, Doc. 2). Pizarro stated that his intent was to claim the Native soil if it meant that he had to steal it away from the indigenous people violently. The Inca ambassador, along with many other Native chieftains in similar situations, did not have any possible choice other than surrender their land and conform to the laws of the white men; if the Native American leaders refused the invaders’ claim to the land the Natives would incur many casualties.

It is important to evaluate the Native American’s reaction to their land being taken by foreign invaders; while the white settlers intended to claim land through whatever means necessary, including acts of aggression, the Native people were willing to share their land under the condition that cohabitation occur peacefully. While some Natives believed that “the white people [had] no right to take the land from the Indians, because they had it first” (Tecumseh, Doc. 12A), they accepted the white man onto their land because they “…knew not but the Great Spirit had sent them to us for some good purpose, and therefore [the Native Americans] thought they must be a good people” (“An Account,” Doc. 13). Some Natives believed that the Great Spirit sent the white man to them for a reason; they were not inclined to dispute their arrival and thus allowed the white man to share the Native soil. In 1886, a Kwakiutl Native said on the issue of shared living: “We do not want anybody here who will interfere with our customs… Let the white man observe his law, we shall observe ours. And now, if you are come to forbid us to dance, begone; if not, you will be welcome to us” (Kwakiutl, Doc. 27). The Kwakiutl man voiced that his community was willing to share their living space provided that the white man not impose his lifestyle on the Native people.

The Native Americans offered a hand to the foreign invaders when they were weak, as opposed to fighting them while they were vulnerable, because these Natives valued nonviolence. Chief Joseph, a Nez Percé Indian, said to the United States Congress: “We gave up some of our country to the white men, thinking that then we could have peace… When the white men were few and we were strong, we could have killed them all off, but the Nez Percés wished to live at peace” (Chief Joseph, Doc. 29C). Wahunsonacock, a Powhatan, also felt that violence was not a decent means of conflict resolution. Speaking to Captain John Smith, in 1609, Wahunsonacock said: “Why should you take by force that from us which you can have by love? Why should you destroy us, who have provided you with food? What can you get by war?” (Wahunsonacock, Doc. 4). This Native man believed that acts of friendship and love were better than war and strife. Thus, it is clear that the attitudes of both sides differ greatly; the white men were willing to capture Native land through violent means, if necessary, greeting the Natives with avarice for property and hostility, and the Natives welcomed the newcomers to share their land in peace often referring to the white men as brothers.

The white men were given a power over the Native people; they had greater weaponry and aggressive personalities. The white men kept to their promise that they would attain the Native land by any means necessary; they chose to implement their will to power over the Native American tribes by driving them further away from their ancestral land or by killing them. Many Natives believed that the white man could not be trusted because the peaceful words that were often spoken to placate the Natives were subsequently followed by acts of violence and cruelty.

They do what they please. They would make slaves of us if they could, but as they cannot do it, they kill us! There is no faith to be placed in their words. They are not like the Indians, who are only enemies, while at war, and are friends in peace. They will say to an Indian, ‘my friend! my brother!’ They will take him by the hand, and at the same moment destroy him (“An Account,” Doc. 13).

It is possible that the Native Americans could not ignore the fact that their kindness to the white man was returned with wrong doing. Standing Bear, a Ponca Indian, describes how an inspector came to his Native village and forced the people to vacate the land. The inspector said: “Tomorrow you must be ready to move. If you are not ready you will be shot” (Standing Bear, Doc. 22). These examples of force used to obtain land illustrate the way in which the white man exercised his will to power over the Native Americans.

Ultimately, the Natives were compelled to abandon their policies of nonviolence because peaceful coexistence with the white man was impossible. In considering adopting a war policy, Spotted Tail, a Lakota Indian, expressed that war between the red and white faced men “…has come from robbery—from the stealing of our land… The Great Father sent you out here to buy our land and we have agreed together to that, but with one understanding: That it shall be the end, also, of this war” (Spotted Tail, Doc. 21A). Thus, some Natives would have been content if their land was bought from them as indicated in many treaties signed, however, the white man had not kept his word, and therefore, the land was stolen away from the Lakota, as well as from many other clans. The Natives had to protect the ancestral land that was being taken from them; a dying father said to his son:

“Always remember that your father never sold his country. You must stop your ears whenever you are asked to sign a treaty selling your home. A few years more, and white men will be all around you. They have their eyes on this land. My son, never forget my dying words. This country holds your father’s body. Never sell the bones of your father and your mother” (Chief Joseph, Doc. 29C).

As the quote reflects, one of the values held by this Native tribe is respecting ancestors by protecting the land which they once founded. The Natives were united in the cause to stand up against the white man in order to save their homeland. A Shawnee Indian by the name of Tecumseh called to unite the many clans of the Native people.

Brothers—My people are brave and numerous; but the white people are too strong for them alone. I wish you take up the tomahawk with them. If we all unite, we will cause the rivers to stain the great waters with their blood. Brothers—If you do not unite with us, they will first destroy us, and then you will fall an easy prey to them. They have destroyed many nations of red men because they were not united, because they were not friends to each other (Tecumseh, Doc. 12B).

Many Native Americans realized that the white forces could be defeated only if the Native people were united to fight under a common cause, that of reclaiming their land and ending their longtime abuse. The overall motivation for the Native people’s retaliation may be seen in a quote delivered by Tsiyu Gansini, a Cherokee Indian, during a meeting with Daniel Boone in March, 1775. There was only a limited amount of space that the Native people could be driven into, and thus, “not being able to point out any further retreat for the miserable Cherokees, the extinction of the race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than submit to further laceration of our country?” (Tsiyu Gansini, Doc. 8). While the Natives would have liked to avoid war with men once considered members of the same brethren, the combined facts of being driven from their land and being killed for resisting were enough to push the Natives from feeling resentful to feeling the need to avenge wrongs committed by the white man.

The selected order of the documents conveys a transformation of the Native Americans’ course of action; the Native people, wanting a peaceful existence, were forced to participate in a war with the white usurpers of their ancestral homeland. My understanding of the events is as follows: the European colonists arrived on the Native soil believing themselves to be a more civilized race of people. With the power of having a greater number of weaponry and armed forces the white men were able to oppress the Native Americans. The white men wanted land, and they were willing to fight, or even kill, in order to claim the Native territory. Conversely, the Natives, although upset that their land was being invaded, were willing to share the land that the Great Spirit had given them with their white faced brothers. Unhappy that the white man took advantage of his power over the Natives, and resentful that the Native people were being driven out of their homes because of the greed that overcame the white man in his quest for further possessions, the Natives ultimately were forced to abandon their policy of attempted peace to fight for the land which was being robbed of them. I chose to order the documents in such a way as to express this progression, or shift, in Native American policy. In general, the sequence of events is in chronological order; it was difficult to place the documents in strict chronology because the history of one Native clan’s usurpation and abuse by the white man often conflicts with another clan’s. Overall it is important to understand why the Native people were driven to participate in war; the order of the documents presented illustrate how the Native people’s ideas changed as the white men threatened to use and ultimately exercised their will to power.

Documents Cited:

“An Account of the History, Manners, and Customs, of the Indian Nations, who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States.” Transactions of the Historical and Literacy Committee, American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia, 1819. (Doc. 13).

Chamberlain, Robert S.. Conquista y Colonizacion de Yucatan. Mexico D.F., 1982. (Doc. 2).

Chief Joseph, to the U.S. Congress. January 14, 1894. (Doc. 29C).

Haley, James L.. The Buffalo War. New York, 1976. (Doc. 20).

Kwakiutl male to anthropologist Franz Boas. 1886. (Doc. 27).

Lewis, Lloyd. Sherman: Fighting Prophet. New York, 1932. (Doc. 19).

Spotted Tail. To federal commissioners. 1876. (Doc. 21A)

Standing Bear. To a Nebraska newspaperman. c. 1878. (Doc. 22).

Tecumseh. To William Henry Harrison. August 12, 1810. (Doc. 12A).

Tecumseh. To the Osage Indians. 1811. (Doc. 12B).

Tsiyu Gansini, Cherokee, during a treaty conference with Daniel Boone. March 1775. (Doc. 8).

Wahunsonacock, Powhatan, to Captain John Smith. 1609. (Doc. 4).