Amerindians_and_Their_Relationship_with_the_French_and_English

The Amerindians: Relationships with the French and English Colonists The exploration of the Atlantic World and all of the newly discovered land, led to a tremendous amount of interaction between different types of people and races and religions, all of whom had never before been in contact with each other. The Columbian Exchange was a biological and ecological exchange that took place following the Spanish establishment of colonies in the New World. The Europeans were introduced to the Africans, the color of their skin, their tribal ways and their religion was of great intrigue to the white conquistadores. But by far the biggest interaction between cultures came with the Europeans and the Amerindians or Native Americans. Europeans and more specifically, the Puritans came to a land which seemed barren, desolate and parts seemed uninhabitable. However to their dismay this land was already inhabited by natives and it was determined by the Europeans that they had the authority to just take the land and its resources for themselves. With continuing bad times in England and the persecution of Puritans by the English crown, this led to the Great Migration of the 1630s. Within a decade, over 10,000 Puritans had arrived in Massachusetts. “This infusion of industrious, well-educated, and often prosperous colonists swiftly created a complex and distinct culture on the edge of what one of the pessimists among them called ‘a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men’ ” (Carnes & Garraty, 2008, pg. 38). It was believed by most Western Europeans in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the Amerindians must be converted to Christianity. According to the Europeans there was only a single Christian category for people who were as deep in sin as to not be aware of the one true God. These people were called the “children of the Devil” (Lovejoy, 1994, pg. 605). The settlers thought that the Christian Gospel was infinitely superior to any Indian religion, which included Devil worship, and thus convinced the European colonists that they were justified in imposing the Gospel upon American natives. The Columbian Exchange is referred to as the mixing of animal, plant, and bacterial life along with the most important, that of different human populations and beliefs, after Columbus’ arrival in the Americas. (McNeill, 2008) “By reuniting formerly biologically distinct land masses, the Columbian Exchange had dramatic and lasting effects on the world.” (McNeill, 2008) New diseases were introduced to American population that had no prior experience of them. The results were devastating. These populations also were introduced to new weeds and pests, livestock, and pets. In addition, new foods and fiber crops were introduced to Eurasia and Africa, improving the diets and increasing trade there. (Greene, Oct., 1928) Additionally the Columbian Exchange vastly expanded the scope of production of some popular agriculture, bringing the pleasures and consequences of coffee, sugar and tobacco use to many millions of people. (McNeill, 2008) The results of this exchange completely changed the biology of both regions and altered the history of the world. By far the most dramatic and devastating impact of the Columbian Exchange followed the introduction of new diseases into the Americas. Soon after 1492, sailors inadvertently introduced theses new deadly diseases, including smallpox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, influenza, chicken pox, and typhus to name a few, to the Americas. The Native Americans did not have any immunity to these diseases like the Europeans and even the Africans did. Therefore, the Amerindians were hit hard by these diseases. Adults and children were stricken by wave after wave of epidemic, which in turn produced catastrophic mortality throughout the Americas. “It is believed that in all, between 1492 and 1650, perhaps 90 percent of the first Americans had died.” (McNeill, 2008) This loss is considered among the largest demographic disasters in human history. (McNeill, 2008) By stripping the Americas of much of the human population, the Columbian Exchange rocked the region’s ecological and economic balance. Ecosystems were in disarray as forests regrew and previously hunted animals increased in number. Economically, the population decrease brought by the Columbian Exchange indirectly caused a drastic labor shortage throughout the Americas, which eventually contributed to the establishment of African slavery on a vast scale in the Americas. (Greene, Oct., 1928)The colonists could not rely on the natives for coerced labor as the population had dropped dramatically to be an effective tool; in addition the remaining natives were able to resist for the most part any European force to enslave them. “By 1650, the slave trade had brought new diseases, such as malaria and yellow fever, which further plagued Native Americans.” (McNeill, 2008) It seems that the Europeans brought over more than just disease to the west. The introduction of new crops and domesticated animals to the Americas did almost as much to upset the region’s biological, economic, and social balance as the introduction of disease had. In terms of diseases, the Columbian Exchange was a wildly unequal affair, and the Americas got the worst of it. The flow of disease from the Americas eastward into Eurasia and Africa was either very minute or it consisted of a single important infection, not an epidemic. The new colonies in the west in the Americas and the Caribbean took the worst hit due to the Columbian Exchange; “everything flows from east to west including death and destruction” (Greene, Oct., 1928). Things began to decline between the settlers and the natives as the colonists wanted more land and the Amerindians refused to give up so easily. In 1637 hostilities broke out between English settlers in the Connecticut Valley and the Pequot Amerindians of the region, a conflict which was known as the Pequot War in which the natives were almost wiped out. (Jalalzai, 2004) However the bloodiest and most prolonged encounter between whites and Amerindians took place in 1675. This conflict was called King Philip’s War by the white settlers. The Wampanoag, whose leader was a chieftain named Metacomet, and who was called King Philip by the white settlers, rose up to resist the English. (Jalalzai, 2004) For three years the natives inflicted terror on a string of Massachusetts towns, killing over a thousand people. This did not last much longer though, beginning in 1676 the white settlers gradually prevailed and with the help of a group of Mohawk allies who ambushed Metacomet and killed him. (Jalalzai, 2004) Once Metacomet was gone, the fragile alliance among the tribes collapsed and the white settlers were soon able to crush the uprising. The struggle for the North American continent was not just among the competing European empires. It was also a series of contests among the many different peoples who shared the continent --the Spanish, English, French, Dutch, and other colonists, on the one hand, and the many Amerindian tribes with whom they shared the continent, on the other. To the Amerindians the European migrants were both menacing and appealing. They feared the power of these strange people: their guns, their rifles, their forts. But they also wanted the French and British settlers to behave like “fathers”--to help them mediate their own internal disputes, to offer them gifts, to moderate their conflicts. In the 17th century before many English settlers had entered the interior, the French were particularly adept at creating successful relationships with the tribes. French migrants in the interior regions of the continent were often solitary fur traders, and some of them welcomed the chance to attach them to and even marry into tribes. The trading of furs and pelts proved to be a very important commodity in the Transatlantic trading that took place in the New World. The Amerindians quickly learned of the desire by Europeans for furs and animal skins and used it to their advantage trading on their terms. The fur trade coincided with the European settlers’ need for a profitable commodity in the Northeast part of America and what is now Canada. Once it was realized the ease at which the Amerindians were able to obtain these goods the French took advantage and started the fur trade in Canada near Quebec and created “New France”. Once the English realized the importance of the fur trade they too tried to entice the native tribes to come down the Hudson River and trade there in New Amsterdam. The trading of furs with the Europeans caused turmoil amongst the neighboring Amerindian tribes. Alliances began to be made between tribes, especially by those interior tribes who had no knowledge of trading with “white men” and who were not easily accessible to the forts. Champlain was able to understand the Amerindians and their ways of trading and “organize the fur trade in ways that were compatible to both the Amerindian and French economies.” (Benjamin et al, 2001, pg. 142) Champlain had determined that it was not simply about prices but more about alliances, friendship and practicing diplomacy. In this aspect, although the French monopoly of the fur trade was disadvantageous, in terms of the world market, to the Hurons whom he had made an alliance with; it was exactly what the Hurons sought in return for being able to trade. (Benjamin et al, 2001, pg. 142) In fact the relations that each of the European powers had with the Amerindians can be characterized by the great American historian, Francis Parkman, in 1867 “Spanish civilization crushed the Indian; English civilization scorned and neglected him; French civilization embraced and cherished him.” (Matson, 1994, pg. 403) French and Indian relations in colonial North America are commonly perceived as having been significantly more amicable than those between the Spanish or English and Amerindians. The fur trade, which was extremely important to the Atlantic trade of the New World, was a part of the Columbian Exchange. The trading of fur itself was not something new yet, the fervor at which the furs were traded was. The high demand in such short amounts of time contributed to the rapid decline of specific animals in certain areas. Although mostly voluntary, the hunting and trapping of these animals for their fur and hides had a negative impact on the Amerindians and their food source and ability to trade for other goods, thus the need for the Indian tribes to go seek land further inland looking for more animals to hunt. The fur trade had begun to decline as all the available animals for trapping had receded and profitability diminished within the original region of trade. In addition fashion in England and Europe shifted away from beaver hats and collars by the 1680s, so that between 1664 and 1700 the price of beaver fell from 14 shillings to 5 shillings per pound in London. (Matson, 1994, pg. 405) By the mid-18th century French influence in the interior was in decline and the British settlers gradually became the dominant European group in the middle grounds. (Perotin-Dumon, Nov., 1984) But as the British American presence in the region grew, the balance of power between Europeans and natives shifted. Newer settlers had difficulty adapting to the complex rituals that the earlier migrants had developed. The stability of the relationship between the Amerindians and whites deteriorated. By the early 19th century, “the middle ground had collapsed replaced by a European world which Amerindians were ruthlessly subjugated and eventually removed” (Perotin-Dumon, Nov., 1984). Nevertheless for a considerable period of early American history the story of the relationship between whites and Amerindians was not simply a “story of conquest and subjugation, but also in some regions a story of difficult but stable accommodation and tolerance” (Perotin-Dumon, Nov., 1984). The Seven Years war as it was known in Europe, confirmed England’s commercial supremacy and cemented its control of the settled regions of North America. In America the conflict, which colonists called the French and Indian War, was also the final stage in a long struggle among the three principal powers in northeastern North America: the English, the French, and the Iroquois. (Perotin-Dumon, Nov., 1984) By the end of the seventeenth century, “the French Empire in America was vast: the whole length of the Mississippi River and its delta (which was named Louisiana after their king) and the continental interior as far west as the Rocky Mountains and as far south as the Rio Grande” (Perotin-Dumon, Nov., 1984). France claimed, in effect, the entire interior of the continent. To secure their hold on these enormous claims they founded a string of widely separated communities, fortresses, missions, and trading posts. Both the French and the English were aware that the battle for control of North America would be determined in part by who could best win the allegiance of native tribes. (Turgeon, Oct., 1998) The English with their more advanced commercial economy could usually offer the Amerindians better and more plentiful goods. But the French offered tolerance. By the mid-eighteenth century, therefore, the French had better and closer relations with most of the Amerindians of the interior than did the English. (Turgeon, Oct., 1998) The English and the French colonists were able to “coexist without serious difficulty for the most part that is until after the Glorious Revolution in England, a series of Anglo-French wars erupted in Europe and continued intermittently for nearly eighty years creating important repercussions in America” (Turgeon, Oct., 1998). Tensions between the English and the French began to steadily increase until finally in 1754 the governor of Virginia sent a militia force which was under the command of a young and inexperienced colonel, George Washington, into the Ohio Valley to challenge French expansion. (Turgeon, Oct., 1998) The French and Indian War lasted nearly nine years, and it moved through three distinct phases. The first phase from the “Fort Necessity debacle in 1754 until the expansion of the war to Europe in 1756- was primarily a local, North American conflict” (Brinkley, 2010). Virtually all the tribes except the Iroquois who remained largely passive in the conflict were now allied with the French and they launched a series of raids on western English settlements. The English colonists fought largely alone to defend themselves against those raids. By late 1755, many English settlers along the frontier had withdrawn to the east of the Allegheny Mountains to escape the hostilities. (Brinkley, 2010) The second phase of the struggle began in 1756, when the Seven Years War began. “The fighting now spread to the West Indies, India and Europe itself, but the principal struggle remained the one in North America, where so far England had suffered nothing but frustration and defeat” (Brinkley, 2010). Eventually beginning in 1758 with William Pitt, the English secretary of state, in control he began to initiate the third and final phase of the war by relaxing many of the policies that Americans had found annoying. (Brinkley, 2010) He agreed to reimburse the colonists for all supplies requisitioned by the army, to return control over recruitment to the colonial assemblies and he dispatched large numbers of additional British troops to America. Now the tide began to turn in England’s favor. The French had always been outnumbered by the British colonists. After 1756, they suffered from a series of poor harvests and were thus unable to sustain their military successes. (Brinkley, 2010) Once Quebec fell on September 13, 1759 it marked the beginning of the end of the American phase of the war. The French and Indian War greatly expanded England’s territorial claims in the New World. For the Amerindians of the Ohio Valley, the British victory was disastrous. Those tribes that had allied themselves with the French had earned the enmity of the victorious English. “The Iroquois Confederacy, which had allied itself with Britain, fared only slightly better. English officials saw the passivity of the Iroquois during the war as evidence of duplicity” (Brinkley, 2010). In the aftermath of the peace settlement, the Iroquois alliance with the British quickly unraveled. The tribes would continue to contest the English for control of the Ohio Valley for another fifty years; but increasingly divided and increasingly outnumbered they would seldom again be in a position to deal with their European rivals on terms of military or political equality. The Seven Years’ War, as it was known throughout Europe, continued on in Europe though even after the defeat of the French in North America. The Seven Years’ War was not only one of the first great colonial wars. “It was also one of the last great wars of religion and extended the dominance of Protestantism in Europe” (Carnes, & Garraty, 2008). The shift of power toward Protestant governments weakened the Catholic Church and reduced its geopolitical influence. (Carnes, & Garraty, 2008) The conclusion of the Seven Years’ War strengthened Britain and Germany and weakened France. But it did not provide any last solution to the rivalries among the great colonial powers. In North America, a dozen years after the end of the conflict, the American Revolution- the origins of which were in many ways a direct result of the Seven Years’ War- stripped the British Empire of one of its most important and valuable colonial empires. The Amerindians were forever affected by the Columbian Exchange and the huge influx of diseases and destruction which was brought over by the European colonists and the African slaves during the Slave Trade. In addition the wars which were fought in North America on behalf of the Europeans destroyed whatever peaceful alliances that had been created between the colonists and the native tribes. This period completely wiped out an ethnic group and their way of living. No more would they be able to roam the lands living and feeding off of it as they did prior to Columbus’ adventure. His joy was another’s heartache and we will forever deal with the consequences of that destruction. References: Benjamin, T., Hall, T., and Rutherford, D. (2001). The Atlantic World in the Age of Empire. Wadsworth, Houghton Mifflin. Cengage Learning. Pages 185-190, 196-201 Brinkley, A. (2010). The Unfinished Nation: A concise History of the American People. McGraw Hill. Columbia University. Sixth Edition. Carnes, M. C., and Garraty, J. A. (2008) The American Nation: A history of the United States. Pearson Education, Inc. New York. Thirteenth Edition. Greene, L. J. (Oct., 1928) Slave-Holding New England and Its Awakening. The Journal of Negro History. Vol. 13, No. 4 pp. 492-533. Association for the Study of African-American Life and History, Inc. Retrieved on 11/21/10 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713845 Jalalzai, Z. (2004). Race and the Puritan Body Politic. The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States. MELUS, Vol. 29, No. 3/4, Pedagody, Canon. Page 259-272. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4141854 Lovejoy, D. S. (Dec. 1994) Satanizing the American Indian. The New England Quarterly. Vol. 67. No. 4. Page 603-621. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/366436 on November 7, 2010. Matson, C. (Jul., 1994) “Damned Scoundrels” and “Libertisme of Trade”: Freedom and Regulation in Colonial New York’s Fur and Grain Trade. The William and Mary Quarterly. Third Series, Vol. 51, No. 3. Mid-Atlantic Perspectives. Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture. Retrieved on 11/14/10 from http://www.jstor.orge/stable/2947436 McNeill, J.R. (2008) The Columbian Exchange. North Carolina Digital History. Retrieved from http://www.learnnc.org on 11/18/10 Perotin-Dumon, A. (Nov., 1984) French America. The International History Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 551-569. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Retrieved on 11/21/10 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105421 Turgeon, L. (Oct., 1998) French Fishers, Fur Traders and Amerindians during the Sixteenth Century: History and Archaeology. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 55, No. 4. Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture. Retrieved on 11/14/10 from http://www.jstor.orge/stable/2674446