On October 9, 1806, Joseph Bird Joquips, a 70 year old Native Indian from the Mohegan Tribe, petitioned the State of Connecticut General Assembly for a portion of the land in Connecticut that was divided among Natives in the Mohegan tribe. He emphasized his devout military career that began in 1758 during the Seven Years’ War to convince members of the General Assembly to allot him a portion of land that belonged to the Mohegan Indians. While Joquips had already rightfully possessed a piece of the land because he had lived on it prior to European presence, the Europeans did not recognize his authority to the land; and thus, forcibly seized control of Native lands so that they could distribute it as they saw fit. It was not important for Joquips to possess a piece of land, but to have the Europeans recognize that the land belong to him. Thus, this petition represented Joquips manipulation of the European system to secure a piece of his tribe’s land with hopes to collect the land for the Mohegan tribe piece by piece. …show more content…
During the war, he travelled and fought at Albany, Detroit, Fort Pitt, and Montreal to help secure British control and prevent French expansion during the Seven Years’ War. Joquips decided to fight alongside the British because he feared what would happen if he did not help them. He knew about the British’s brutal destruction, exploitation, and extermination of Native Indians. For instance, he would have been familiar with the British’s annihilation of the nearby Pequot tribe during the Pequot War in 1637. Hence, Joquips strategically used assimilation and loyalty with the hopes that the British would spare the Mohegan tribe from
Lindsay G. Robertson's Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands centers on the landmark 1823 Supreme Court case Johnson vs. M'Intosh. Robertson's research provides previously undiscovered knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case, placing the case in a new context both politically and judicially. Robertson tells the story of a costly mistake, one made by the American judicial system but paid for by an indigenous people who to this day suffer from the effects of American settlement. As reviewer Christopher Tomlin writes, "Robertson's narrative is far less concerned with parsing its legal doctrine, than with the historical circumstances of the case itself." Robertson begins his
Between the years 1600 to 1700, English colonists were just settling the New World and establishing their own colonies, yet this colonization didn’t come without obstacles. Upon entering the seemingly unscathed land, colonists were greeted by Native Americans. At first, the two groups expressed a relationship characterized by amity and cooperation, yet as time went on, the “white superiority” of the colonists and the belief that they were primary owners of land soured the relationship. It was just a matter of time before the colonists would take over and run out the Native Americans. Primarily peaceful and affable, the relationship between the Indians and English steadily depreciated as the English overran the lands of the Indians while the
The Pequot War is one that many are not aware of but should still be of outmost importance because casualties were suffered on both opposing sides. Due to this ordeal, this particular war enhanced the image on the Native Americans and contributed towards the start of the United States. The motives for the Indians to start a war with the British were for control of trade of furs, wampum and land. The Dutch and the Pequot Tribe traded peacefully, until the interference of the British colonists in the early 1630s.
In 1742 the chief of Onondaga of the Iroquois Confederacy knew that his land that the people shared would become more valuable than it has ever been. (Doc B)The reason for this was because the “white people” also known as the Americans wanted the land of the chief. The feelings of the Chief result in complaining to the representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia,
Although, the Pequot War had ended the need for land still remained the main need among the colonist in the New World. This left a great opportunity for Massasoit to gain an upper hand and, continue to gain power by selling his lands to the English. These sells also brought peace between the tribes and the colonists but, this also gave Massasoit more power in the New World. Thus, “…from Massasoit’s perspective, his alliance with the English continued to serve him well.”
Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and The Trail of Tears There have been many dark times in our History as Americans. Among them is the Trail of Tears,brought upon by Andrew Jackson, which exiled the Indians from the American south and resulted in the death of thousands on the way to Oklahoma. Before this trying time there was speculation within the supreme court whether to treat the Native tribes as a sovereign foreign nation or as a dependent entity within the United States. I will discuss how these decisions came to be, the reactions to said decisions, and the aftermath of these rulings which inevitably leads to the Trail of Tears.
Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land.
Chief Joseph's surrender speech titled, "I Will Fight No More Forever”, is a historical and significant oration addressing the challenges the Ned Perce tribe had to overcome being ousted from its lands in the Wallowa Valley in the Oregon Territory. As a Native American leader of the Nez Perce tribe, Chief Joseph was born in Oregon in 1840, and the principal idea of the speech covered the hardships he and the people in his tribe experienced. Although brief, his speech was a powerful, touching message of struggles and pain. Before examining the speech that Chief Joseph gave in 1877, it is imperative to consider the occurrences that preceded it. For months Chief Joseph and his tribe were hunted out of their native territories by white settlers.
Despite the fact that Penn’s heirs (none of whom shared the religious beliefs which apparently informed Penn’s policies) infamously failed to uphold his high moral standards for dealings with Indians, Native Americans continued to evoke “the same good spirit which possessed the good old Man William Penn.” In other parts of colonial America, encounters between Native Americans and Europeans were mostly categorized by violence and periods of uneasy peace. The religious beliefs on which Pennsylvania was founded prevented Europeans from settling the colony through war and conquest. However, relationships and expectations which this religious culture formed allowed for a different kind of conquest through political maneuvers and deceit. The Walking Purchase is undoubtedly the most famous example of how the noble precedent set by Penn was promptly set aside by “Brother Onas” after his death.
Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the US government shared his strong beliefs behind his initiative called the “Indian Removal Act'' that forced Native American tribes to relocate to Oklahoma territories. The policies in which native american’s were forced away to Oklahoma territories was known as the Trail Of Tears, and it was an awful process filled with death and despair for the native population and their culture. Andrew Jackson stressed that his policies, “will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites” and therefore allow for both parties to prosper (Jackson, 371). Similarly to eminent domain, Jackson’s intention could be beneficial to everybody, unfortunately however the Native Americans would later nearly completely perish due to the disease and wars with colonists. However, the land taken from the Native Americans was later built on and used to benefit American citizens at the expense of Native Americans who lived there.
A letter from three Seneca Native American tribal leaders expressed their concern to President George Washington in 1790. Essentially, the letter explained that they and the Iroquois were completely and utterly frightened by Washington and his men even post-Revolutionary Wartime. They also described how hostile the Americans were to their tribes after the war and that the chiefs were so powerless compared to the Americans that they gave up their lands up to them. Then nearing the end of the letter, they question Washington whether it was just and reasonable for his commissioners to act in such a manner towards them. Finally, they close with a statement that is fundamentally true no matter how one looks at it.
Forced Founder’s, written by Woody Holton, sheds new light on one of the best-known events in American History. Holton challenges the traditional narrative of the great land-owning elite leading the revolutionary war. He does not believe it was one single factor but in fact, a web of influences that pushed Virginia into the war of independence. Holton’s main argument consists of the idea that the Indians, merchants, slaves, and debtors helped propel free Virginians into the independence movement. Virginia’s gentry were joining their peers in declaring independence from Britain in response to grassroots rebellions against their own rule.
As the Shawnees were attempting to reunite in the Ohio Valley, they found themselves displaced and had to defend their territory from western expansion. The Shawnees placed all their trust in the British, which didn’t turn out positive for them, for when the British ceded all lands west of the Appalachian Mountains, which endangered the lives of the Natives. “For the
Congress passed the treaty in order to relocate the Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands in the west. Although, the act did not order the removal of the Indians, it did allow the president to negotiate land by exchanging treaties with tribes living within the boundaries of the states ” (2008-2015). This shows that the government did not have the right to do what they
In his oration to Governor Isaac I. Stevens Chief Seattle, a Native American leader addresses the governor's request to buy Indian lands and create reservations. Through his oration Seattle boldly presents his stance on the issue of Indian lands, representing his people as a whole. On account for his native people Chief Seattle's stands up for their land through the use of imagery, parallels, and rhetorical questions. Chief Seattle communicates his purpose by using bold imagery that directs the audience to the cause that Seattle is speaking of. He uses metaphors and similes comparing aspects of nature to the issue at hand.