At War With The Iroquois

[caldrail]

Much hath been said, & many Exclamations thrown out, even in Parliament, by some popular Orators in the Opposition, against employing the Indians, to whom they give the Appellation of Savages

Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution)

 

 

In 1778 that British Parliament had spent seventy five thousand pounds on gifts for native americans in the south alone. Savages or not, they were potential allies in a conflict and everyone knew it. Their contribution in the Feench & Indian War was not forgotten, and as always the relationship between settler and native was a troublesome one.

 

 

Nonetheless there was a general desire to limit civil strife in the American colonies on both sides, and indeed, there was considerable sentiment for loyalty toward England in private correspondence at the beginning of the American Revolution, with some perplexity concerning the reasons why war was breaking out in the first place, sentiments that quickly evaporated as war became a reality for many people. Clearly there was a reluctance to make a bad situation worse in colonial, British, and Indian circles.

 

 

We are unwilling to join on either side of such a contest, for we love you both - old England and new. Should the great King of England apply to us for aid - we shall deny him - and should the Colonists apply - we shall refuse.

Oneidas Tribe,(Speech to Governor Jonathon Trumbull of Connecticut)

 

 

This is a family quarrel between us and Old England. You Indians are not concerned with it. We don't wish you to take up the hatchet against the King's troops. We desire you to remain at home, and not join either side, but keep the hatchet buried deep...

Continental Congress ( Address to the Six Nations, July 1775)

 

 

However warfare is about advantage over your enemy, and the desire to recruit allies to the cause was creating pressure upon the Indian tribes in spite of official resistance at the same time. The British were appealing to the Iroquois to "feast on a Bostonian and drink his blood", providiing a roast ox and wine to set the mood. They were however slow off the starting block

 

 

I know how to shute and ambush just like Indian and want your warriors to come and see me and help me fight Regulars. You know they Stand all along close Together Rank and file and my men fight as so as Indians Do and I want your your warriors to Join with me and my Warriors like Brothers and Ambush the Regulars. If you will I will Give you Money, Blankets, Tomehawks, Knives, and Paint and the Like as much as you say because they first killed our men when it was Peace time.

Ethan Allen of Vermont (Speech to the Iroquois, May 1775)

 

 

General Gage would order Guy Johnson and John Stuart to bring the Indian to the British cause at the first opportunity in mid 1776. Johnson took his orders to heart. He arrived in London with a Mohawk indian he introduced to high society as Joseph Brant. Such was the acclaim and reception the Indian found that he was utterly convinced of the British cause on his return to the colonies. Colonel John Butler made another attempt to bring the Iroquois to the British side, using the same arguments the French had made in the earlier conflict to the effect that Indian land was under threat of appropriation from dangerous colonial lunatics and that it was in the interest of the Iroquois to get onside. However the Iroquois revealed a somewhat better relationship with the colonists than we might expect..

 

 

You say their powder is rotten We have found it good. You say they are all mad, foolish, wicked, and deceitful - I say you are so and they are wise for you want us to destroy ourselves in your War and they advise us to live in Peace. Their advice we intend to follow.

Chief Flying Crow (Answer to John Butlers request, Summer 1776

 

 

By 1777 the Iroquois finally became embroiled and the Six Nations were split, with Oneidas and Tuscaroras favouring the rebellion, and Mohawks, Cayugas, Senecas, and Onondogas siding with the British.

 

 

The native americans had a fearsome reputation. It was said that the Iroquois in particular had a culture of courage under torture, in that a prisoner who bore his agony with laughter was rewarded with a quick merciful death. An anecdote concerning General Amherst tells that when captured by Indians he was tied to a tree so the natives could throw hatchets at him. With a fatal blow looming, Amherst laughed out loud, and that act so impressed the Indians that they let him go.

 

 

The concept of savagery versus civilised behaviour is a common thread in writings of this period. The Iroquois indian is respected for ferocity and skill, yet he is also a warrior who does not fight with the steadfastness assumed by colonial writers. The native fearlessness in war was said to be motivated by bravado rather than civilised notions of what courage entailed. 'True courage', we are told, ' involves honour and mercy', aspects of behaviour discounted in native americans. One diary that the stories of cruelty by indians are completely false, though that is contradicted that a few entries later.

 

 

Every Nation hath something Peculiar in its Mode of War. An Indian prefers the Mode of fighting behind a tree, or of skulking in Bushes. He prefers the Hatchet, the scalping Knife, & the Tomahawk, to the Bayonet, the Sword & the Cutlass. His Weapons give, at least, as sudden, if not less a painful Death, than the Englishman's Weapons. In truth he doth not discover what is called english courage, of standing undaunted in an open Field to be shot at; he rather chuses to be safe in his own Person, while he destroys the Person of his Enem, but this is all, the Custom of Particular Nations. If you incline to put him to Death in a painful Manner, he will convince You, that he can undergo the most excrutiating Torture, without a Groan.

Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution)

 

 

Peter Oliver informs us that scalping was much encouraged by bounties paid by the settlers, and mentions that scalps of Indians were at a premium. In fact, Oliver blames the settlers themselves for introducing scalp hunting to the Indian in the first place. Rather more chillingly, he also adds that it was unknown for an englishman to take a scalp until the Battle of Lexington when such barbaric behaviour is first mentioned.

 

 

Let Patriots roar as loud as they please, about the Barbarity of an Indian scalping knife; but let them know, that an Indian savage strikes the deadly Blow before he takes of the scalp. It was reserved for the New England savage, only, to take it off whilst his Brother was alive

Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution)

 

 

So much for the superior morality and civilisation of the European. But of course this was war, and conflict brings out the best and worst of all sides.

 

 

General Rutherford who commands the Militia Brigade from Mecklenberg & Salisbury is a perfect savage & bears the most rancorous hatred to Tories.

Robert Gray (Observations Of The War In Carolina 1782)

 

 

Whatever the truth, Indian raids were not taken lightly by either side. Ethan Allen, who had earlier attempted to rouse the Iroquois to war, was also quick to mention in his recollections of the Revolution that the 'cruel and blood thirsty savage' (and he had nothing but scorn for the Indian) would find it impossible to carry on a war, unless supported by the trade and commerce of a civilised nation The very same Ethan Allen entertains us with an account of an Indian attack...

 

 

...and in half a minute after a savage, part of whose head was shaved, being almost naked and painted, with feathers intermixed with the hair on the other side of his head, came running to me with incredible swiftness; he seemed to advance with more than mortal speed. As he approached near me, his hellish visage was beyond all description; snakes eyes appear innocent in comparison of his; his features extorted; malice, death, murder, and the wrath of devils damned spirits are the emblems of his countenance...

Ethan Allen (A Narrative Of Col. Ethan Allen's Captivity)

 

 

Allen was actually saved from this attack by the intervention of witnesses nearby. However the depositions made by veterans in the 1830's when applying for a military pension rarely mention Indians, let alone describe interaction with them, despite the extraordinary variety of personal stories they recounted. On the other hand John Struthers recalled going to war with every intention of inflicting defeat on the Indian. On his patrols he tells us the men watched Indian warpaths carefully when patrolling, as the Indians might appear out of nowhere and melt away just as quickly. David Welch recalls his hand to hand fight with natives...

 

 

Presently I saw through the brush two Indians sitting by a smoke that appeared to have been kindled to keep off the mosquitos. I instantly laid myself flat down, keeping my eye upon the spot to see if there were more than two. In a few moments I became impressed with the belief there were but the two. I was not more than eight rods distant from them.

After much hesitation as to what might be most proper, I finally came to the conclusion that my companions were proceeding on and might perhaps soon be suprised., as there might be more Indians within a short distance. I drew my gun, and whilst lying thus flat on the ground, I took deliberate aim at one of the Indians and shot him dead. The other Indian instantly sprung upon his feet, seizing his gun, and started to run. Without reflecting upon the consequence, I immediately run after him, having my gun unlloaded. The Indian made but a few leaps after I started before he turned and fired upon me, but his fire missed as I supposed by several feet. He then dropped his gun and came at me with his tomahawk. I encountered him with my empty gun. The first blow which he aimed with his tomahawk I warded off with my gun, and in doing so I was fortunate enough to hook the deadly weapon from him. It fell upon the ground behind me.

I was then encouraged and sprung to get the tomahawk, in which effort I succeeded. Whilst I was yet bent in picking up the tomahawk, the Indian, who had drawn his knife, gave me a cut, giving me a deep but short wound upon my right lega little above my knee. He then aimed a second stroke at me with the same weapon. This blow I warded off with my left hand, in doing which I received a wound between the thumb and forefinger..About the same instant, with the tomahawk, I hit him a blow upon the head which brought him to the ground, and with another blow after he had fallen I made sure he was beyond doing me any further harm.

David S Welch (Deposition, 1832)

 

 

Stirring stuff. It's also noticeable that Indians came and went from British camps with barely a glance. We might conclude that native americans were not involved in large numbers..However, records indicate that sizeable numbers were employed in specific instances, such as the seven hundred Indians that accompanied Major Butlers expedition of four hundred troops. Wheeling Fort was attacked by two or three hundred Indians according to John Struthers.

 

 

Early in the Spring of 1780 intelligence was received, I do not remember how, that a large body of Indians were on their march to devastate the whole country from Wheeling to Fort Pitt. This news was either not believed or at least not heeded until until a party of them, crossing below Wheeling, had penetrated nearly halfway from the Ohio to Catfish Camp...

... They had taken a number of prisoners but, becoming alarmed, speedily retraced their steps to the Ohio and murdered all their male prisoners along the way

John Struthers (Deposition, 1841)

 

 

Similarly he describes other raids that frightened the local population greatly, though in each event civilian casualties were not great at all and the Indians did not seem to extract any advantage other than catching their quarry off guard. Most raids were of nuisance value, perhaps a scalp or two from luckless pickets, a few stolen horses, or barns set ablaze. Inevitably then a punitive expedition was mounted that attacked the Indian setlements apparently causing hundreds of deaths among them, men, women, and children, an event that John Struthers explicitly declared he took no part in nor found agreeable despite his willingness to engage the Indian at war.

 

 

George Washington considered the Indian raids by those allied to England to be serious enough to warrant official retribution and sent John Sullivan on such a mission to the inaccessible western reaches of the Iroquois. Following the Susquehanna River he penetrated the tribal lands of the Senecas, the most powerful of the Six Nations, who abandoned their vilages and cornfields to be burned by Sullivans troops, an episode that left the Senecas with a deep foreboding of the White Man.

 

 

In letters and diaries it was common to read of peoples admiration of the American wilderness despite the difficult enviroment. It was also an anonymous enviroment that inspired many covert actions. An officer called Samuel Brady had even conducted a raid with his men dressed as Indians, and asserted that 'the only good Indian was a dead Indian'. George Roush brought up an interesting point that some raids were actually nothing more than hunting trips of no threat to the armies or civilians, so clearly the difference was difficult to discern when a body of Iroquois were spotted moving stealthily through the forest.

 

 

Curiously there are hints contained in the various writings of witnesses that those native americans not actually engaged in raids were astonishingly unwary, as if their innocent purpose would protect them from harm, and all too often they discovered a musket ball does not respect such sentiments. Time and again they are picked off when travelling harmlessly. For all the dangers of Indian interaction, we also learn that among the people 'made beggars of' by the war, a large number sought sanctuary among the native american settlements and received it without complaint.

 

 

What can we make of the Iroquois at war? The American Revolution was fought on the frontier as much as the battlefield, armies forced to travel by river for lack of roads. Away from the battlefield and the reluctance to act without orders, warfare in the wilderness was a hazy interaction of hostile forces with a clear willingness to shoot first and ask questions afterward.

 

 

The relationship with the native american was complex, with respect, hatred, expedience, and some exploitation identifiable on all sides. There's no doubt that even allowing for some natural exaggeration of old soldiers making deositions for pension payments, there was no shortage of courage and daring among those who faced the Iroquois, who for their part don't seem to impress the modern reader overly with their performance infighting. They were, after all, relying primarily on speed and suprise.

 

 

Of course we have little record of what the Iroquois themselves thought. They were understandably baffled and frustrated by the behaviour of the immigrants, ill at ease with the military regime so different from the informal warfare that came naturally to them. And when it was all over, when the war was settled, the Iroquois expected rewards and appreciation from the British for their efforts. They got nothing.

 

 

 

The Revolution Remembered (ed. John C Dann)

The American Revolution - (ed. John Rhodehamel)

The History Of The Indian Wars (Robert M Utley & Wilcomb E Washburn)

Edited September 17, 2012 by caldrail

[Klingan]

A very good read! I'm very glad that you posted it. Especially the diary quotes are very interesting and thought provoking.

[caesar novus]

It was said that the Iroquois in particular had a culture of courage under torture, in that a prisoner who bore his agony with laughter was rewarded with a quick merciful death. An anecdote concerning General

That sounds like a romanticized spin. In an anthropology course, we studied the dry academic collections of every scrap of info at initial contact, like from the inobtrusive meanderings of trappers that didnt alter the culture yet. Iirc, the iroquois women specialized in the art of extreme torture of rival indian captives, with the goal of keeping them alive for many days of maximized suffering. The merciful death for the brave came at a late stage, like when all your skin was already peeled off.

[caldrail]

It does sound that way, I agree, but modern researchers and period testimonials all agree that this was the case. To what extent this was commonly seen I can't say. Unlike many native american tribes or the modern re-interpretation of native american culture in general, the Iroquois were in fact quite belligerent by nature. Although I find the period evaluations of their courage a little arrogant and stilted, a warrior culture tends to breed individuals that have pride in their resistance to adversity, so perhaps there's a grain of truth in it.