Today marks the anniversary of the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the final contest in one of the least remembered wars in American history
In one sense, the Northwest Indian War — fought between the U.S. and the assorted tribes of the Western (Wabash) Confederacy — actually represented the conclusion the American Revolution. As the Mohawk leader Joseph Brant famously described it, the end of that war resulted in the sale of Native people to the US Congress. Although the British never enjoyed practical control over the Ohio River valley — nor, for that matter, did the French before them — England did not hesitate to offer it to the US as part of the Treaty of Paris. The subsequent war for the Ohio River valley was prompted by the widespread recognition among Indian people that political independence for the colonies would prove catastrophic to their long-term interests. During the war, the United States had employed scorched earth tactics to break the power of an already divided Iroquois Confederacy; after 1783, the Miami, Shawnee, Delaware, and Kickapoo among other groups correctly understood that British concessions left them vulnerable to further white encroachment.
Indeed, throughout the 1780s the United States offered formal and informal inducements to land speculators, squatters and anyone else who wished to intrude on Indian lands north of the Ohio. Congress opened up vast areas of eastern Ohio for settlement following treaties in 1784, 1785, 1786 and 1789, when representatives of the Seneca, Wyandotte, Delaware, Ojibwe, Sauk, Potawatomi, and Ottawa surrendered claims in the name of their entire nations (who may or may not have actually consented to the terms of the settlement). As articulated in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the official policy of the US claimed to possess the “utmost good faith” in respect to American Indians and vowed that
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.
Though casting itself as both protector and lawful chastener of its Indian brothers, Congress was for the most part inept in both roles. Weak by design, the US Congress was unable to maintain its commitments to interior Indians. Whites across the western frontier, from the Carolinas to Lake Erie, lashed out against Indian villages in an effort to push the settlement line westward. Meanwhile, states like Connecticut — which continued to claim territory west of the Cuyahoga — rewarded veteran soldiers by illegally granting them tracts of land that were supposedly reserved for Ohio Indians.
Determined to limit white expansion west of the Ohio River, tribes of the region united politically and militarily. In 1786, delegates from nine tribes sent a message to Congress insisting that land cessions would not be legitimate unless they occurred “in the most public manner, and by the united voice of the confederacy.” The so-called “partial treaties,” they added, would be considered void. While diplomatic efforts foundered, the ongoing frontier grew more violent, as Indians struck back with the aid of the British, who were eager to prolong their mischief south of the Great Lakes. By the end of the decade, more than 1500 Americans and an untold number of Indians had died in frontier skirmishes, provoking a major crisis in Washington’s first term as President. Washington responded by ordering a succession of generals against the Shawnee and Miami, who comprised the heart of the Northwest Indian confederacy. American forces performed terribly, losing several battles in present-day Indiana and Ohio; the defeat of Arthur St. Clair in November 1791 still ranks as one of the worst losses in American military history, with 632 soldiers killed (out of an army of 920) and nearly all of the rest wounded.
While some members urged a settlement with the US, most leaders of the Confederacy were committed to maintaining the Ohio River as the boundary between white and Indian sovereignty. In 1792, they announced that peace negotiations would not proceed until the US agreed to confirm that boundary. In 1793, the Confederacy reiterated these demands in a statement issued from the Miami Rapids in northwestern Ohio.
We desire you to consider[,] Brothers, that out only demand, is the peaceful possession of a small part of our once greaty Country. Look back and view the lands from when we have been driven to this spot, we can retreat no further, because the country behind hardly affords food for its present inhabitants. And we have therefore resolved, to leave our bones in this small space, to which we are now confined.
On 20 August 1794, “Mad” Anthony Wayne, commander of the absurdly-named Legion of the United States, led 3000 soldiers into battle against the Shawnee chief Blue Jacket and the Miami chief Little Turtle, whose badly outnumbered forces fled after a brief skirmish near present-day Toledo. Fewer than 100 fighters died in the battle, but it was a consequential moment. Among other things, the battle marked the end of British assistance to the Indians of that region; when confederacy warriors, expecting to receive British protection, fled to nearby Ft. Miami, they were turned away. At the time, the United States and Great Britain were engaged in negotiations that would eventually lead to Jay’s Treaty, a deal that would result in the British evacuation of its northwestern forts; the British, who did not want the US to side against them in their ongoing war with France, were eager to avoid a formal confrontation with the US.
With the Battle of Fallen Timbers and the eventual ratification of Jay’s Treaty, the Indian people south of the Great Lakes were permanently weakened and were no longer able to resist intrusion from the east. A little less than a year later, the Treaty of Greenville liquidated nearly all Indian claims to what would eventually be the state of Ohio.
46 comments
August 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm
silbey
Arthur St. Clair also managed to hand Fort Ticonderoga to the British without much of a fight in 1777. He just wasn’t much of a general.
August 20, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Vance Maverick
I suppose it would be a bit rich to complain that posts on US/Native-American relations are downers.
How were statements like that composed? Translators? Did the Confederacy have members who had learned English in missionary schools?
August 20, 2008 at 3:27 pm
davenoon
That’s a good question, Vance — I’d have to look back at the documents’ collection that I drew it from. Since the Shawnee and Mohawk in particular had a long history of diplomacy with French and English folks, I imagine the answer could be pretty simple…. But I dunno for sure.
As for being a downer, I don’t think Eric and Ari mentioned that I’m supposed to be the wet blanket around here. They wanted to reduce the smiles and good cheer at EotAW by about 17%.
August 20, 2008 at 3:46 pm
witless chum
Just based on the amount of contact most of these tribes had with American and British whites, I don’t see how English speakers would have been in short supply.
August 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm
ari
I’m supposed to be the wet blanket around here. They wanted to reduce the smiles and good cheer at EotAW by about 17%.
Which is why, after your cat-blogging hijinks, we’ve decided to dock your pay.
August 20, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Vance Maverick
Yeah, WC, point taken, but it’s decidedly formal and yet slightly nonstandard. I’m tempted to suspect it was processed somewhat by one of the victors, giving it that movie-Indian cadence of wisdom. (And then processed much more recently, for typos.)
August 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Greg Miller
How were statements like that composed? Translators? Did the Confederacy have members who had learned English in missionary schools?
Translators tended to be “in-between” peoples (those people with mixed heritage (usually a European father and native mother–metis in French), or those white captives raised by native peoples who returned to white society.
Living here in Toledo, I should note that the battleground is now an upscale (in relative terms) shopping mall, The Shops at Fallen Timbers–although a memorial with a better view of the Maumee River is located across the highway.
August 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm
davenoon
If I weren’t suffering through a meeting with our new provost — the guy who apparent;y controls a substantial portion of my tenure fate this year — I’d be looking through Colin Calloway’s World Turned Upside Down to see what’s up with the translation question.
I should note that I’m not the only person in this meeting; everyone thinks I’m taking notes. I have that “I’m taking notes look.” Which requires nodding.
I’m nodding right now, in fact.
August 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Gene O'Grady
Why is the use of the term legion absurd?
August 20, 2008 at 5:35 pm
davenoon
Oh, because it was intended to evoke a sense of imperial Roman armies marching across Gaul. Or something.
August 20, 2008 at 6:08 pm
eric
I’m nodding right now, in fact.
You need to increase your repertoire. Try frowning thoughtfully, looking at the ceiling, scratching your head, rubbing your eyes. Not that I ever do these things while surfing the ‘net during meetings.
August 20, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Michael Elliott
the defeat of Arthur St. Clair in November 1791 still ranks as one of the worst losses in American military history, with 632 soldiers killed (out of an army of 920) and nearly all of the rest wounded
In fact, I read somewhere that — if you consider the numbers of casualties as a percentage of the available U.S. military forces — St. Clair’s Defeat in 1791 is in fact the worst loss ever suffered by the U.S. military. (This would be the part where I would back that up with some kind of reference if I were going to be more responsible. But, heck, I already had that meeting with the provost, if you know what I mean, so my days of responsibility are behind me.)
On another random note, a couple years ago I was talking to a literary agent who handles trade books in history, and I asked if there was a topic out there that he believed was in sorely need of book treatment — and the first thing out of his mouth was the Battle of Wabash, aka St. Clair’s Defeat.
August 20, 2008 at 7:11 pm
ari
a literary agent
Wait, I know how this story ends! This person is now administrative assistant to the history acquisitions editor at a third-tier university press. Right?
August 20, 2008 at 9:42 pm
JP Stormcrow
I recall the jarring transition in my youthful “Ohio History” courses (as I recall they were “required” in several grades, 5th, 7th & 9th maybe?) of the section on the brave, noble and resourceful Indians (this was pre-PC) being immediately followed by the triumphalism of Fallen Timbers and Greenville.
Exeunt noble savages, stage left. Enter Johnny Appleseed, stage right.
August 20, 2008 at 9:50 pm
ari
All I remember is the unit on the mound builders.
August 20, 2008 at 9:54 pm
davenoon
If my 4th grade “Virginia History” was to be believed, the English arrived and were briefly showered with corn and tobacco before fleeing to some distant planet in a nearby solar system.
August 20, 2008 at 9:55 pm
davenoon
That should read, “showered with corn and tobacco by the Indians, who soon fled to some distant planet…”
Stupid beer.
August 20, 2008 at 9:56 pm
JP Stormcrow
All I remember is the unit on the mound builders.
They were exceedingly well-built.
August 20, 2008 at 9:58 pm
eric
We had to learn Stephen Foster songs.
August 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm
eric
Thusly.
August 20, 2008 at 10:10 pm
ari
Easy, dave, that beer is your friend. As are its friends.
August 20, 2008 at 10:11 pm
eric
As are its friends.
Who, the cows and the cats?
August 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm
ari
Them, too.
August 20, 2008 at 10:18 pm
teofilo
We had to wade through the rather difficult question of how to deal with various important events that are still controversial political issues centuries later. Mostly the coming of the Spanish, the Pueblo Revolt, the reconquest, the Mexican War, and the Manhattan Project. (The eighteenth century was pretty dull, apparently.) The complicating factor is that all the actors in these events have highly opinionated descendants with strong but differing views on them.
This was in eighth grade. We may have had it in elementary school too, but I don’t remember anything about it if so.
August 20, 2008 at 10:21 pm
rja
Teofilo, after I build my time machine, may I go back and go to your school? Highlights for us included things like building replicas of the California missions out of creative materials like sugar cubes.
August 20, 2008 at 10:29 pm
JP Stormcrow
Virginia History
I just recall Virginia trying to claim William Henry Harrison, just because he was born there and all. (And his presidential career fit the Ohio mold much better than the Virginia one.)
August 20, 2008 at 10:48 pm
teofilo
To be fair, this was a gifted class, and it was 1998, when tensions over these issues were at a high point because of the quadricentennial and arguments over how to commemorate it. My memory may also have embellished the actual content of the class with things that came up in other contexts around the same time.
August 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm
rja
Ah. Equally fairly, mine was post Proposition 13, Reagan-era public school. Unfortunately my condiment-based architectural skills serve me poorly as an adult and a grad student.
August 21, 2008 at 4:33 am
bw
If my 4th grade “Virginia History” was to be believed
If Schoolhouse Rock were to be believed (a farther-reaching authority than my 4th grade teacher, to be sure), the Indians hid behind rocks while the Pilgrims landed and then the corn magically grew by itself.
August 21, 2008 at 7:15 am
John Emerson
Teo: Did they mention Reis Tijerina?
August 21, 2008 at 7:26 am
oudemia
In the 70s/80s the schoolchildren of NJ were taught that the Lenni Lenape indians mysteriously disappeared, much like Amelia Earhart or Judge Crater.
August 21, 2008 at 7:31 am
Vance Maverick
I don’t remember a single thing I was taught about the native inhabitants of California before reading Ishi — that was seventh or eighth grade, and made an impact.
August 21, 2008 at 8:07 am
Jay C
…”the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the final contest in one of the least remembered wars in American history
In one sense, the Northwest Indian War — fought between the U.S. and the assorted tribes of the Western (Wabash) Confederacy — actually represented the conclusion the American Revolution.”
Good post, d: but is the above comment now an accepted “CW” view of the Indian Wars in the Old Northwest, or is this your (inspired) interpretation”
Most of what I have read concerning the campaigns which culminated at Fallen Timbers treat them not as a concluding,
but an opening phase of a decades-long process of “settling” (i.e., what we nowadays term “ethnically cleansing”) the
Trans-Ohio region. A process which wasn’t finally resolved until the campaigns of the War of 1812 (with Tippecanoe in there in 1811)
finally cleared most non-Americans out of the area for good. Are the two “phases” considered distinct enough to be treated as separate “wars”? Or one long, drawn-out one?
August 21, 2008 at 10:29 am
davenoon
No, I think you’re right, Jay — what I was trying to get at (not clearly enough) was that the war in the Northwest was partly responsible for pushing the British out of the region while also bringing an end to a phase of Indian-white military conflict that actually stretched back to the 1750s in the eastern Ohio/western PA region. Some of the Shawnee did hold out and launch a new campaign of resistance around 1811 (as you point out), but I’m inclined to see that as a distinct conflict.
Of course, all this is artificial boundary-drawing. By the time the Indians in the Ohio region been crushed, the folks in Illinois and Wisconsin were gearing up for a similarly unsuccessful effort to halt white encroachment. And so on and so forth….
August 21, 2008 at 10:38 am
TF Smith
Isn’t the conflict over the Middle Ground (trans-Appalachia/Ohio River Valley/Greater Great Lakes Region, YMMV) idea as an outgrowth of the Revolution and proximate cause/prelude to the 1812-15 war pretty much accepted?
Foner includes it in Volume 1 of his Give Me Liberty series, which is pretty much mainstream (at least in my experience) for freshman-sophomore level surveys (and high school AP).
As far as 4th grade California history, the current state of the art are written reports/multi-media (PPT) on one of the following (not in any particular order):
A) Mission life
B) Presidio life
C) Pueblo life
D) Tribal life (Ishi and/or Juanamaria)
at least as far as the junior Smiths have experienced it; the sugar cubes have been replaced by foam, if that’s what the budding historian choses as their media.
Also SOP are:
1) Famous Californians (the jrs did Chester Nimitz and Nancy Pelosi, respectively);
2) Oregon Trail/Gold Rush diversity;
3) Two Years Before the Mast (not literally);
August 21, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Michael Elliott
Wait, I know how this story ends! This person is now administrative assistant to the history acquisitions editor at a third-tier university press. Right?
No, it ends with him writing this.
August 21, 2008 at 3:33 pm
ari
Oh, that’s a different story. Yours has a happier ending, which makes it unsuitable for this blog. Anyway, remind me some day to ask you why you published your book with Chicago. Not that I have anything against Chicago as a press (Hear that, Levi?). I’m just surprised, given your subject and the accessibility of your prose, that you didn’t go with a trade publisher.
August 21, 2008 at 3:36 pm
ari
Also, is that book good? If so, I should really read it — even though the cover’s ugly.
August 21, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Michael Elliott
Chicago meant not only working with Levi, but with the fabulous Doug Mitchell, my editor (and jazz drummer).
Donovan’s book is good. It’s a very straightforward battle history that does a good job of synthesizing both the recent archaeology and a lot of Native accounts.
August 21, 2008 at 6:43 pm
ari
Okay, I’ve just ordered it. You’re on the hook if it isn’t good.
August 21, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Michael Elliott
Listen, you are taking advice from someone who has read three different books on the archaelogy of the battlefield, at least one on the remains of the soldiers, and a new one entirely devoted to battlefield maps. I’m not terribly reliable on this score — hook or no.
August 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
ari
Do you like Jerry Greene’s work? I’d really be curious, as he figures VERY prominently in the Sand Creek story I’m telling.
August 21, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Michael Elliott
I do, especially the book on Washita. He sometimes bends over backwards to be even-handed; that is, he wants to give every argument its due. But I thought he did nice work on Black Kettle and Monahsetah in that book. As you can imagine, he has a lot of credibility with the Custer folks.
I gave a presentation on Washita at the WHA in which I talked about his treatment of the battle v. massacre nomenclature section — and he was in the audience. I wasn’t sure what he’d make of it, but he was very kind afterward — and then also said that he had changed his mind, and wished that he had forcefully stated that it should be regarded as a massacre. I thought that was interesting.
On the other hand, I’ve never read his work on Sand Creek, and I know there was a great deal of controversy about the location there.
August 21, 2008 at 8:02 pm
ari
Damn you and careful answers. I want to know if he’s great. Or, if not that, if he sux.
I kid.
August 21, 2008 at 8:15 pm
teofilo
Did they mention Reis Tijerina?
Nope. Tijerina was a bit too radical (and recent) even for the ex-hippies teaching the class.
September 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Benboom
I’m really sorry to see that you don’t seem to be posting new material here anymore.
:-(