Tag: Native Americans

Land of the Oneidas

Land of the Oneidas

By Daniel Koch

The central part of New York State, the homeland of the Oneida Haudenosaunee people, helped shape American history. This book tells the story of the land and the people who made their homes there from its earliest habitation to the present day. It examines this region’s impact on the making of America, from its strategic importance in the Revolution and Early Republic to its symbolic significance now to a nation grappling with challenges rooted deep in its history. The book shows that in central New York—perhaps more than in any other region in the United States—the past has never remained neatly in the past. Land of the Oneidas is the first book in eighty years that tells the history of this region as it changed from century to century and into our own time.

Forgotten Trails: Unmasking the Legacy of Native American Removal and its Contemporary Implications

Forgotten Trails: Unmasking the Legacy of Native American Removal and Its Contemporary Implications

Rachel Burnett

Once, in the vast and untamed lands of what is now known as the United States, there thrived a multitude of Native American communities. These diverse and vibrant nations had cultivated rich cultures, deep-rooted traditions, and an intricate understanding of their surroundings. However, as the 19th century unfolded, a dark cloud loomed over these indigenous peoples. In the late 19th century, following a series of conflicts and broken treaties, Native American communities faced forced complete removal from their ancestral lands. The government policies aimed at assimilation and expansion systematically uprooted these communities, displacing them from their homes and severing their ties to their traditions and in 1890, a turning point occurred in Native American history with the forced removal of their communities from their ancestral lands. This displacement was not merely an isolated event but rather part of a broader pattern of marginalization that had persisted for centuries and continues to persist. Yet, despite its undeniable significance, this chapter of American history has largely been forgotten or intentionally overlooked.

The historical marginalization and lack of mainstream attention to the forced removal of Native American communities in U.S. history after 1890 has had profound effects on their social, economic, and political development in contemporary society. This study aims to explore how this neglect and amnesia surrounding the forced removals have contributed to ongoing disparities, underrepresentation, and challenges faced by Native Americans. By relegating this significant chapter of American history to obscurity, society unintentionally perpetuates the cycle of neglect and underrepresentation experienced by Native Americans. The absence of acknowledgment and understanding of the removal policies and their consequences has hindered the recognition of indigenous rights, cultural contributions, and the unique challenges faced by these communities. This research seeks to shed light on this historical oversight and highlight its implications for present-day disparities within Native American communities. By recognizing the impact of historical marginalization, it becomes possible to address current challenges effectively and foster development within these marginalized communities. Through an exploration of relevant literature, primary sources, and historiography, this research will provide a comprehensive understanding of how historical amnesia has shaped the experiences of Native Americans today. By uncovering the underlying causes of ongoing disparities, underrepresentation, and challenges they face, this study aims to contribute to broader efforts towards achieving equity and justice for Native American populations.

The study of the removal of Native Americans after 1890 has long been approached from various perspectives, often reflecting prevailing societal attitudes and biases. Traditional approaches to this topic have tended to focus on a few main ideas namely the notion that Native Americans desired urbanization and the belief that non-Native Americans were providing assistance in their transition. One common argument put forth by traditional studies is that Native Americans willingly sought relocation to urban areas. Proponents of this perspective suggest that indigenous communities recognized the benefits of modernity and sought opportunities for economic advancement through urbanization
        Another idea frequently emphasized in traditional approaches is the assumption that Native Americans were uneducated or culturally deficient compared to non-Native Americans. This perspective suggests that native cultures were inherently inferior and needed intervention from more advanced societies to progress. Consequently, it portrays non-Native American efforts as benevolent attempts to elevate indigenous populations through education, religious conversion, and exposure to Western technologies. In these traditional interpretations, non-Native American involvement was often depicted as an act of assistance rather than forced displacement. Advocates argue that government policies such as the Dawes Act of 1887 aimed at breaking up tribal landholdings into individual allotments were well-intentioned steps toward promoting private property ownership among Native Americans. Similarly, boarding schools designed to eradicate indigenous languages and cultural practices were presented as educational endeavors meant to “civilize” Native American children.

Lastly, the final common approach seen with the study of Native Americans on a broader scale is that Native American history stopped after 1890. Traditional approaches to the study of Native Americans have often treated Native American history as if it came to a standstill after the infamous Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, perpetuating a skewed and incomplete narrative. This historical tunnel vision neglects the rich and complex tapestry of Native American experiences and contributions beyond that point. It wrongly reinforces the notion that Native Americans exist solely in a historical context, overlooking their vibrant and evolving cultures, traditions, and communities. This approach inadvertently marginalizes contemporary Native voices and their ongoing struggles, creating an inaccurate portrayal of their identity and relevance in modern America.

Overall, the approaches described, in addition to the obvious are problematic because they contribute to historical amnesia surrounding the removal of Native Americans by perpetuating a narrative that downplays the systemic injustices and challenges faced by Native communities during the process of urbanization and relocation. These traditional approaches tend to obscure the agency and resistance of Native Americans, portraying them as passive actors who willingly embraced modernity and external intervention. By emphasizing the supposed benefits of urbanization and the alleged cultural deficiencies of Native cultures, these narratives silence the historical reality of forced displacement, loss of land, and the violation of treaties. They fail to acknowledge the broader context of Native American history, including their resilience and efforts to preserve their cultures in the face of relocation and its effects.

With all of these mentioned ideas in mind imagine having your land taken away, your culture suppressed, and your way of life disrupted. This is the harsh reality that Native Americans faced following the tumultuous period of removal and relocation, particularly after 1890. As the dust settled on a nation rapidly expanding westward, it became increasingly clear that indigenous communities were bearing the brunt of this progress. Following this period marked by forced removals and relocations, these indigenous peoples found themselves grappling with an array of disparities that continued to persist long after their displacement. To begin this study, we will delve into the disparities experienced by Native Americans as a consequence of forced removal and relocation policies implemented during the late 19th century.

The late 19th century marked a pivotal period in the history of Native Americans in the United States, a time when government policies and actions began to create enduring disparities within indigenous communities. At the forefront of these policies was the Dawes Act of 1887, legislation with far-reaching consequences. With the aim of assimilating Native Americans into American society, the Dawes Act of 1887 symbolizes significant inequities and unjust policies imposed on them. This legislation had devastating consequences for indigenous groups by removing essential tribal lands necessary for survival, cultural practices, and economic stability under its allotment system. [1]As a result of inadequate inheritance in land resources, many families suffered from economic challenges leading to loss or dispossession over time. Furthermore, traditional languages and customs were interrupted through mandatory enrolment in boarding schools designed to wipe out native identities entirely. Furthermore, the act crippled governance structures within tribes creating complications when advocating their rights among native communities – currently manifesting itself today as disparities experienced daily by native Americans including poverty levels that remain high, lack quality healthcare access and education along with political under-representation all of which are core legacies felt as a result of the Dawes Act.

Continuing, the Dawes Act’s repercussions would later shape the 1950s’ relocation policies. One of its main outcomes was the relinquishment of valuable tribal lands, frequently transferred to non-Native settlers, limiting Native Americans’ entry into their traditional domains. This deprivation contributed significantly to various economic challenges faced by numerous indigenous communities for years afterward. As a result, decreased land ownership resulted in struggling tribal economies that made Native Americans susceptible and prone to hardships. The Dawes Act and the relocation policies in the 1950s both had assimilation as a central concept. The former sought to do so through land ownership while the latter aimed for urbanization, but their underlying goal was similar: making Native Americans conform to mainstream American society’s ideals. This reflected how federal authorities wanted to alter identities and lifestyles within Indigenous communities at that time. Basically, the Dawes Act set the stage for economic fragility and property deprivation which led to some policymakers finding urban relocation policies in the 1950s more desirable. The act’s effects of taking away land from Native Americans and interfering with their customary way of life established a foundation for inequalities and difficulties encountered by these communities. This ultimately made them easier targets for future initiatives focused on promoting urbanization or moving elsewhere during the 1950s.

Moving forward, in the 1950s, Native Americans were coerced into relocating to urban areas in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency and assimilate into mainstream society. Commissioned by Bureau of Indian Affairs commissioner Dillon S. Myer the relocation program was launched with the aim of relocating reservation-based Native Americans to urban environments, providing promises such as educational and occupational opportunities, transportation services, housing provisions and everyday necessities. Although this lured over thirty thousand participants; inadequate funding led to poor execution which left many re-locators facing inferior living conditions coupled with gender-segregated low-level jobs that eventually forced them back home. [2] Despite its shortcomings however it can’t be ignored that some relocated Native Americans thrived in cities securing upward socioeconomic mobility by being pro-active in the process of organizing and establishing themselves. As a result, these Native Americans were able to advocate for better livelihoods on reserves, but this was not a common happening. Ultimately, the 1950’s relocation policies failed to fulfill their objectives as many individuals lacked the necessary skills for city life due to emphasis on quantity over quality during recruitment. Consequently, they experienced racial discrimination and limited job opportunities while residing in low-income neighborhoods despite some meager benefits of relocation that favored those with initial job expertise. [3] This historic instance highlights disparities encountered by Native American communities through government policies that lacked adequate support which would eventually lead them towards developing pan-Indian social institutions amidst harsh living situations. These occurrences are consistent with the historical experiences of Native Americans within urban environments illustrating the overlooked complexities faced historically across the developmental stages of these regions.

Furthermore, after the failure of the relocation act and the increasing issues it caused in its attempt to force urbanization on to Native Americans the disparities they faced as result only increased. After the relocation act of the 1950’s, the 1960’s brought new hope to the Native Americans with the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. Despite the promises of social and political change during the Civil Rights era, Native American communities continued to face significant challenges. The termination policy, which aimed to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society, led to the loss of tribal sovereignty and the dispossession of lands. This policy resulted in economic instability and the erosion of traditional cultural practices. Additionally, the forced relocation of many Native American families from reservations to urban areas disrupted their social fabric and often led to poverty and social marginalization. These challenges and the disparities faced by Native Americans would cease to end even as changes came about for other minority groups this is evident by the “Longest Walk” protest. In the 1970s, Native American activists staged a protest in Washington D.C. called the “Longest Walk,” which brought to light the longstanding disparities faced by their communities. These inequalities were largely impacted by governmental policies and legislation that threatened fundamental rights such as land ownership, access to water and fishing resources, treaty alteration or elimination of reservation systems. These protesters understood that these legal provisions weren’t just mere abstractions but intricately woven into cultural identity and economic sustenance for indigenous people’s survival.[4] Even though this was a peaceful demonstration it highlighted many unaddressed issues inherent with historical wrongdoings towards Indigenous peoples. This event serves as evidence of an ongoing struggle against oppression where multifaceted disparities continue to exist related not only within educational attainment gaps but also unequal healthcare opportunities due mainly because race-based discrimination persists even today. Additionally, the fact that such legislative proposals were considered as late as the 1970s emphasizes that even in modern times, Native Americans grapple with legislative threats that have the potential to perpetuate their marginalization, illustrating that these disparities remain relevant and pressing issues in the present day.

The disparities outlined in this section strongly demonstrate how the neglect and historical amnesia surrounding the forced removals have played a pivotal role in perpetuating the ongoing challenges faced by Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 and the 1950s relocation policies, both driven by the goal of assimilation into mainstream American society, inflicted lasting damage on indigenous communities. These policies resulted in the loss of tribal lands, economic instability, cultural erosion, and social marginalization, creating a foundation of inequality that continues to shape Native American experiences. The subsequent civil rights era did not bring significant relief, as termination policies persisted, further undermining tribal sovereignty and land ownership. The “Longest Walk” protest of the 1970s highlighted the enduring disparities related to land, resources, and cultural identity that continue to plague Native communities. These historical injustices, neglected for so long, have left a lasting imprint, contributing to the disparities in education, healthcare, and political representation still experienced by Native Americans today, underscoring the argument that acknowledging and addressing this historical legacy is crucial to addressing these ongoing challenges.

Moving forward, in the previous section, we delved into the significant disparities that Native Americans experience across various domains, including healthcare, education, and socioeconomic status. However, it is important to recognize that these disparities are not isolated incidents but rather part of a larger pattern of underrepresentation faced by Native Americans in contemporary society. This section aims to shed light on this critical issue and explore how Native Americans continue to be marginalized and overlooked within systems that shape their lives. By examining the various aspects of underrepresentation, such as inadequate political representation, limited media visibility, and exclusion from decision-making processes, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted challenges faced by Native American communities today. Through an analysis of these underrepresented perspectives, we can contribute to ongoing efforts towards achieving greater equity and inclusivity for all individuals in our diverse society including the Native Americans.

To start off, the history of Native Americans has suffered from a consistent pattern of marginalization and misrepresentation in dominant societal narratives. This regrettable circumstance has resulted in many prevalent misunderstandings, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps when it comes to essential aspects related to the rich cultural heritage that defines each tribe’s unique traditions and experiences. Furthermore, this persistent systemic under-representation issue is not limited only to these crucial historical elements but also encompasses an immediate threat regarding indigenous languages’ endangered status along with their respective rituals or customary practices. Consequently, there exists a critical risk linked with the disappearing traditional elements integral towards forming Native identity amidst modern times – making preservation efforts necessary for combating culture erasure as well as safeguarding ancient customs vital toward uniquely defining those who still maintain them today. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that the underrepresentation of Native Americans in modern discourse and media coverage not only pertains to historical injustices but also extends towards contemporary challenges faced by Indigenous communities. These adversities encompass issues such as poverty, healthcare disparities, and political obstacles which are oftentimes disregarded or downplayed within public discussions. The failure to adequately report on these matters impedes progress towards enacting effective policy changes and support systems for Native American peoples who continue to suffer from systemic marginalization.

An emblematic example of this broader issue of Native American underrepresentation in the United States is found in an examination of the lack of acknowledgement of Native American communities within the state by the state of Pennsylvania. The historical denial of the existence of Native Americans in Pennsylvania serves as a noteworthy example of underrepresentation perpetuated by public institutions. This denial results in Native American communities not receiving official recognition or acknowledgment, therefore rendering them largely invisible within the state’s records and narratives. The absence of official status places these groups at a disadvantage – lacking legal rights, resources and opportunities that come with full acknowledgement. Moreover, this lack further contributes to their underrepresentation. Denying their cultural contributions creates an even greater disconnection from history, amplifying this invisibility throughout public awareness about Pennsylvania’s past[5].  Furthermore, it is distressing to recount how societal pressure forced many members of Native American tribes in Pennsylvania into concealing ancestry leading towards the erasure of cultural identity  – ultimately creating another form of ongoing-under-representation for Native Americans.

Moving forward, we will be focusing primarily on the political underrepresentation of the Native Americans. However, it is important to understand that the underrepresentation of Native Americans is a multifaceted issue that transcends the and extends deep into various aspects of American society. While the lack of political representation is a significant concern, it is important to note that it is just one facet of a broader pattern of systemic inequity and marginalization that Native American communities grapple with. Recognizing that underrepresentation is not confined solely to the political arena, is crucial to adopt a thorough approach that addresses these interconnected issues.

Continuing on, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of significant political transformation for the United States. As the nation grappled with industrialization, urbanization, and the expansion of democratic ideals, various marginalized groups strove to gain representation within the political arena. However, one group that often remains overlooked in this narrative is Native Americans. Despite their rich cultural heritage deeply intertwined with the American landscape, Native Americans found themselves systematically excluded from meaningful participation in the political process. Continuing into this section we will dive into an examination of how Native Americans experienced political underrepresentation during this crucial period. By shedding light on this lesser-known aspect of American history, we can better understand the complexities surrounding democracy’s development and confront enduring issues related to Indigenous rights and representation.

To truly gain and understand the development of the intense political underrepresentation of Native Americans we have to take step back in time, particular to the year 1878 when the Washington Constitutional Convention would convene. The Washington Constitutional Convention of 1878 stands as a pivotal moment in American history, particularly concerning the political underrepresentation of Native Americans. Held during a time when the nation was grappling with issues of equality and inclusion, this convention shed light on the deep-rooted injustices faced by indigenous communities. The proceedings not only highlighted the systemic marginalization of Native Americans but also sparked conversations that would shape future legislation and advocacy efforts aimed at rectifying these longstanding disparities. During this era, Native Americans across the United States were consistently denied their basic rights to political participation. Discriminatory policies and practices had effectively silenced their voices and hindered their ability to influence decisions that directly impacted their lives. This disenfranchisement was acutely felt in Washington state, where tribal nations faced numerous challenges in asserting their political power.

 At the convention, the creators of Washington State’s Constitution made significant choices that directly impacted Native American involvement in politics and representation. One such choice was excluding non-citizens from voting, which affected many Natives as their tribal affiliations rendered them ineligible for citizenship. This exclusion prevented a large portion of Native Americans from participating until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. Furthermore, although there were Indigenous representatives present at this meeting, they did not have any power to vote which resulted in inadequately considering native perspectives during constitution drafting – leading to underrepresentation within political processes across the state. In addition, the 1878 constitution confirmed Washington’s indigenous tribes’ limited sovereignty by placing them under strict jurisdiction where self-governance could be undermined. Additionally, voting restrictions imposed disproportionate property requirements on natives impeding fair opportunities towards meaningful participation or political representation. [6] Notably, these decisions continue impacting today’s policies & governance locally with these communities still facing challenges asserting rightful political rights while maintaining sufficient influence over local affairs.

Furthermore, after the convention in 1878, a significant period of political underrepresentation was set off in the United States. This era was characterized by a combination of legal, cultural, and socio-political factors that marginalized Native American voices in the national political landscape. As mentioned previously, after the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, Native American lands were dramatically reduced through allotment, often leading to the loss of tribal communal ownership and self-governance. The imposition of citizenship and land ownership requirements for voting further disenfranchised Native Americans, as many were deemed unfit to vote due to their tribal affiliations or lack of individual property. For example, various state constitutions, such as North Dakota’s in 1889, introduced clauses demanding that Native Americans sever tribal ties to be eligible to vote. This effectively disconnected them from their tribal communities and cultural identities. Not only did this impact their involvement in tribal governance, but it also hindered their political representation in state and national politics. Additionally, the federal government’s policies of forced assimilation and the establishment of Indian boarding schools which aimed to eradicate Native cultures and languages also dealt a serious blow to the political representation of Native Americans. This cultural assault hindered Native Americans’ political participation by disconnecting them from their traditional forms of governance and communal decision-making. Native Americans were also not afforded equal opportunities for education and employment, which further in return additionally limited their political influence. [7] Continuing, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 represented a partial shift in federal policy, allowing tribes to reconstitute their governments and regain some measure of self-determination. This brief positive shift after 1934, however, wouldn’t be long lived as it following the trend would be undermined by the shift that would occur in the 1940’s.

The 1940s would mark a critical turning point in Native American policy in the United States, heralding a shift that significantly deepened political underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples. This era was characterized by a series of policy changes and legislative actions that not only neglected the voices and interests of Native American communities but actively marginalized them. During the 1940s, there was a significant transformation in government policies towards Native Americans. These changes led to a reduction of tribal sovereignty and autonomy as the government began considering terminating its responsibilities to these communities[8]. Influential members of Congress advocated for assimilating Native Americans into mainstream society while seeking to shift decision-making authority away from them. Simultaneously, states were pressuring federal authorities to withdraw their obligations regarding indigenous populations. The overarching objective was economic and social rehabilitation; however, such policies often disregarded unique cultural and political needs required by these communities. [9] This era is marked by a pivotal shift in Native American policy that had long-lasting consequences on their political representation and self-determination.

This shift would continue through the 1950’s with the previously mentioned relocation policies put in place. However, as we enter the 1960’s another shift occurs with the emergence of the African American Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement brought about a significant change in Native American political representation. Initially aimed at addressing the rights of African Americans, its principles resonated with other marginalized groups such as Native Americans, who also sought equal treatment and non-discrimination. The passing of two legislative acts – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 facilitated greater access to voting for minorities by eliminating discriminatory practices like voter literacy tests and poll taxes that had long plagued native communities. Inspired by these changes, activists emerged from within local tribes seeking self-determination which ultimately led to increased participation in politics resulting in greater engagement on all levels-locally statewide and even federally.

Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to eradicate racial discrimination in voting and grant Native Americans full participation in elections, their communities still faced political underrepresentation due to various challenges. These obstacles encompassed issues such as gerrymandering, voter identification requirements, and limited access to polling places on reservations or rural areas. These circumstances adversely impacted Native American voters’ capacity for exercising their democratic rights effectively. [10] Furthermore, a lack of representation at both state legislatures and federal levels persisted throughout subsequent elections — underscoring an ongoing struggle toward inclusive politics that continues today. Even with advancements made through the Voting Rights Act, these barriers demonstrate how deep-seated inequities continue denying fair political representation for Indigenous peoples across America. A prime example of the continuing political underrepresentation that followed the Voting Rights Act is the campaigns for the election of 1972. The campaigns for the election of 1972 underscore the persistent lack of political representation for Native Americans, even in the aftermath of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is evident that Native American concerns remained marginalized as both presidential candidates in the 1972 election, George McGovern and Richard Nixon, primarily focused on broader national issues like foreign policy and economic reforms, neglecting specific Native American issues. The campaigns further highlight a historical pattern of unfulfilled promises and pledges of support, further indicating that Native American voices were not adequately heard or represented in the political discourse. Furthermore, Nixon’s decision to reduce the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget by nearly $50 million exemplifies a lack of commitment to addressing the unique challenges and needs of Native American communities. Additionally, the campaigns brought attention to the historical trust-based relationship between the United States and Native Americans, which has often been unfulfilling and marked by neglected promises. [11] Overall, despite the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the political underrepresentation of Native Americans persisted, as demonstrated by the government’s ongoing failure to address their specific concerns and needs as evidenced by the 1972 election campaigns.

Before we bring this study to an end, in order to provide a more comprehensive picture, it is important to acknowledge the rise of movement for Native American rights that began to develop during the end of the time frame discussed here. Serving as a culmination of the enduring disparities and underrepresentation faced by Native Americans for centuries the Red Power Movement developed in the late 1960s and 1970s. Emerging as a response to these long-standing injustices, the movement sought to address issues such as tribal sovereignty, land rights, cultural preservation, and political activism. The Red Power Movement played a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for the rights of Native Americans in contemporary American society. While it paved the way for significant progress, Indigenous communities continue to grapple with ongoing challenges, including poverty, healthcare disparities, and political obstacles. [12]These disparities persist, emphasizing the need for continued advocacy and change. However, it’s important to note that the comprehensive examination of the Red Power Movement and its contemporary implications lies beyond the scope of this study, which primarily focuses on the historical context and challenges faced by Native Americans during earlier periods.

Ultimately, the underrepresentation both politically and in general detailed in this section intensely shines a light on how the neglect and amnesia surrounding the forced removals of Native Americans have played a significant role in perpetuating the disparities and challenges faced by these communities. The historical narrative reveals how Native Americans have consistently been excluded from meaningful participation in various aspects of American society, including politics, despite their rich cultural heritage and contributions to the nation. This exclusion extends to the denial of basic rights, voting restrictions, and the erosion of tribal sovereignty. Even after legislative efforts like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was aimed at ensuring equal political participation, barriers persisted such as gerrymandering and limited polling access, demonstrating ongoing obstacles to representation. In addition, the focus in the 1972 election campaigns serves as a poignant example of how Native American concerns have been marginalized in national politics. This pattern culminated in the emergence of the Red Power Movement in the late 1960s and 1970s which further pushed the need for advocacy and change in response to deep-rooted disparities. Additionally, this historical underrepresentation and discrimination contribute to the idea that acknowledging and addressing these past injustices and the pattern of underrepresentation are crucial steps toward rectifying the ongoing challenges faced by Native American communities and achieving greater equity and inclusivity.

In conclusion, the involuntary displacement of Native American communities from their traditional lands during the late 19th century and subsequent ignorance about this period in U.S. history have had significant repercussions that still impact Indigenous people today. The marginalization and lack of acknowledgment these occurrences received has contributed to ongoing inequalities, limited representation, and hardships faced by Native Americans and neglecting past injustices has continued a pattern of disregard for indigenous  peoples’ rights which perpetuates further neglect and subordination meant toward them.

Furthermore, the research has highlighted that government policies, such as the Dawes Act and relocation policies of the 1950s, had profound and lasting effects on Native American communities. These policies aimed at assimilation and urbanization disrupted traditional ways of life, eroded tribal sovereignty, and contributed to economic instability. The consequences of these policies are high poverty levels with limited access to quality healthcare and education and political underrepresentation which affects Native Americans even today. Moreover, along with these consequences, light is shed on the matter of political underrepresentation faced by Native Americans throughout history. Starting from exclusionary policies adopted at Washington Constitutional Convention in 1878 to harmful transformations in federal policy during the 1940s; Native Americans have been systemically oppressed within political procedures. Continuing, despite having The Voting Rights Act introduced in 1965, hindrances such as gerrymandering, and voter ID requirements still hinder their impact over politics.

Additionally, the research has also highlighted how the underrepresentation of Native Americans extends beyond politics and encompasses various aspects of American society, including education, healthcare, employment, and media representation. Recognizing the impact of historical amnesia and underrepresentation, it becomes clear that addressing current challenges and fostering development within Native American communities is essential. By shedding light on these historical oversights and their implications for present-day disparities, this research aims to contribute to broader efforts toward achieving equity and justice for Native American populations. Acknowledging their rich cultural heritage, enduring resilience, ongoing struggle for rights and representation are crucial steps towards rectifying past injustices while building a more inclusive society equitable for everyone including the Native Americans.

References

Burt, Larry W. “Roots of the Native American Urban Experience: Relocation Policy in the 1950s.” American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1986): 85–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1183982.  

“Dawes Act of 1887.” National Archives Catalog , 2016. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5641587.  

Jacobs, Michelle R. Indigenous memory, urban reality stories of American Indian relocation and reclamation. New York: New York University Press, 2023.

Legislative Review 1, no. 12 (1972). https://jstor-org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/community.28145368.   

Minderhout, David, and Andrea Frantz. “Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania.” Human Organization 67, no. 1 (2008): 61–67. http://www.jstor.org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/44127040.

“Resolution Regarding Native Americans Adopted at the Washington Territory Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1878.” University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division. ; Washington Territory Records. Accession No. 4284-001, Box 3. Accessed September 26, 2023. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.73849FE4&site=eds-live&scope=site.  

Treuer, David. “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present.” Amazon, 2020. https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.  

Tyler, S. Lyman. A history of indian policy. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973.

Wolfley, Jeanette. “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans.” American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.   “‘Longest Walk,’ Protest March to Oppose Abrogation of All Native American Treaties and the Genocide of Indian People.” Accessed September 26, 2023. https://jstor.org/stable/community.34557616

[1]  “Dawes Act of 1887,” National Archives Catalog , 2016, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5641587.

[2] Larry W. Burt, “Roots of the Native American Urban Experience: Relocation Policy in the 1950s,” American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1986): 85–99, https://doi.org/10.2307/1183982.

[3] Michelle R. Jacobs, Indigenous Memory, Urban Reality Stories of American Indian Relocation and Reclamation (New York: New York University Press, 2023).

[4] “‘Longest Walk,’ Protest March to Oppose Abrogation of All Native American Treaties and the Genocide of Indian People,” accessed September 26, 2023, https://jstor.org/stable/community.34557616 .

[5] David Minderhout and Andrea Frantz, “Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania,” Human Organization 67, no. 1 (2008): 61–67, http://www.jstor.org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/44127040.

[6] “Resolution Regarding Native Americans Adopted at the Washington Territory Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1878,” University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections Division, Washington Territory Records, Accession No. 4284-001, Box 3, accessed September 26, 2023.”

[7] S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973).

[8] David Treuer, “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present,” Amazon, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.

[9] S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973).

[10] Jeanette Wolfley, “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans,” American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202, https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.

[11] Legislative Review 1, no. 12 (1972), https://jstor-org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/community.28145368.

[12] David Treuer, “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present,” Amazon, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.

 

 

Local History: The American Revolution in the Finger Lakes

Local History: The American Revolution in the Finger Lakes

Reprinted from New York Almanack based on an essay from the National Park Service’s Finger Lakes National Heritage Area Feasibility Study. https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2023/09/american-revolution-finger-lakes/#more-98398

Initially, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois) claimed neutrality during the conflict between Britain and the colonists, seeing the disagreement as a civil war and valuing loyalty to their families and to their lands above all else. When the political discontent erupted into the American Revolutionary War, the member nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy split their support between the British and newly formed American forces. The majority of nations and individual members supported the British under the belief that those nations would be more likely to keep their relative independence and land under continued British rule, while the Oneida and Tuscarora backed the American Colonists.

As with many American families, alliance was not clear-cut, and in some cases, allegiance was split on a person-by-person basis, which destabilized the clan-based society. What had started as a European civil war on North American soil soon turned the Confederacy against itself, undermining the social unity and political stability that the Six Nations had enjoyed for centuries. In 1778, Loyalists and members of the British-backed nations participated in destructive raids that crippled Continental forces and destroyed frontier settlements in New York and Pennsylvania. Fearing that the New York frontier would be pushed east to the Hudson River if divisive action was not taken, General George Washington ordered General John Sullivan to lead four brigades of men — a sizable portion of the Continental Army — on a scorched-earth campaign that would limit the Haudenosaunee’s ability to attack in the future.

Washington tasked Sullivan with launching a terror campaign to destroy the food supply of the Cayuga and Seneca Nations in the heart of the Finger Lakes and to reduce the Cayuga and Seneca’s forces. Smaller expeditions were tasked with destroying Seneca settlements in western Pennsylvania and Onondaga settlements in Central New York. General Sullivan and his second-in-command, General James Clinton met in Tioga near the Pennsylvania-New York border and began their campaign by destroying the Munsee Delaware settlement of Chemung in present-day Chemung County. Instead of deploying the guerrilla tactics that long served Haudenosaunee well, Confederacy war chiefs and the meager British forces available to counterattack decided to retaliate with a standing battle.

The Battle of Newtown on August 29, 1779, ended in a British and Indian retreat and destroyed morale for the British-backing Confederacy Nations, who now chose to proactively flee to other nearby settlements. For the next two weeks, Sullivan’s forces moved from Seneca Lake to Canandaigua Lake to Chenussio — a Seneca stronghold near present-day Leicester in Livingston County that included 128 multi-family longhouses. By the end of the campaign, Sullivan’s men destroyed more than 40 Haudenosaunee villages, at least 160,000 bushels of corn, countless pounds of stored vegetables and fruit, and only suffered 40 casualties.

While the American forces did not take Haudenosaunee prisoners, the Sullivan Campaign destroyed the nations’ capacity to wage war. By the end of September 1779, more than 5,000 nation members had arrived at the British Fort Niagara expecting food, clothing, and shelter in the face of their catastrophic losses at the hands of the Americans. Instead of lessening the threat to frontier settlements, the Sullivan Campaign increased the animosity of Natives and British alike, laying the ground for fierce fighting within the New York frontier of British-backed Indian raids during the 1780s.

My Story: Rev. Samson Occum, 1787, Mercer County

My Story: Rev. Samson Occum, 1787 Mercer County

Visit of Rev. Samson Occum to the Lenape at New Stockbridge

Samson Occum, leader of the New England Brothertown religious movement (not to be confused with the NJ Brotherton community), had a long association with the Delaware Indians.  After his time as Eleazar Wheelock’s first Indian pupil, Occum became a minister.  Based upon his success in religious education, Wheelock began his Indian School in Connecticut, where his first two pupils were Delaware Indian boys from John Brainerd’s Bethel Mission settlement in present-day Monroe Township, New Jersey. The Delaware (Lenape) supported the French in the French and Indian War and by 1777, many had left New Jersey for areas of New York and western Connecticut. By 1802, the assimilation with the Allegheny and Oneida was complete.  (See The Brotherton Indians of New Jersey, 1780)

Use the documents below to discuss and investigate the following questions:

  1. What motivated Samson Occum to become involved with Native Americans?
  2. How did decisions affect the livelihood of the Lenape and Delaware Valley Indians?
  3. Was New Stockbridge a suitable place for the migration of the Lenape and other native Americans?
  4. Do you think the travels of Rev. Samson Occum were planned in advance or were they a response to the letter from the Native Americans at New Stockbridge dated Nov. 28, 1787.
  5. What was traveling in New Jersey like for Rev. Occum (or anyone)?
  6. Comment on five days in Rev. Occum’s journal.

The following information details Occum’s visit to Brotherton and Weekping (Coaxen):

From Love’s Life of Occom (p. 276):

Fundraising mission of Samson Occom and others to New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania:

November 28, 1787 (underlining is for emphasis)

To all Benevolent Gentlemen, to Whom these following lines may make their appearance.

We who lately mov’d from Several Tribes of Indians in New England, and Setled (sic) here in Oneida Country. And we also Muhheeconnuck Tribe, who lately came from Housotonuk alias Stockbridge, and have settled in Oneida, And finding it our indispensible (sic) Duty to maintain the Christian Religion amongst ourselves in our Towns, And from this Consideration, Some of us desired our Dear Brother, the Rev d Samson Occom, to give us a visit, and accordingly, he came up two years ago this Fall, and he was here a few Days; and his preaching came with great weight upon our Minds. And he has been here two Summers and Falls since. And we must confess to the Glory of God, that God has made him an Eminant (sic) Instrument amongst us, of a Great and Remarkable Reformation. And have now given him a Call to Settle amongst us, and be our Minister that we may enjoy the glorious Doctrines and ordinances of the New Testament.

And he has accepted our Call. But we for ourselves very weak, we c’d do but very little for him. And we want to have him live comfortable.

The late unhappy wars have Stript (sic) us almost Naked of everything, our Temporal enjoyments are greatly lesstened (sic), our Numbers vastly diminished, by being warmly engaged in favour of the United States. Tho’ we had no immediate Business with it, and our Spiritual enjoyments and Priviledges (sic) are all gone. The Fountains abroad, that use to water and refresh our Wilderness are all Dryed up, and the Springs that use to rise near are ceased. And we are truly like the man that fell among Thieves, that was Stript (sic), wounded and left half dead in the high way. And our Wheat was blasted and our Corn and Beans were Frost bitten and kill’d this year. And our moving up here was expensive and these have brought us to great Necessity And these things have brought us to a resolution to try to get a little help from the People of God, for the present; for we have determined to be independent as fast as we can, that we may be no longer troublesome to our good Friends, And therefore our most humble Request and Petition is, to the Friends of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, [that they] would take notice of us, and help us in encourageing (sic) our Dear Minister, in Communicating Such Things that may Support him and his Family. This is the most humble request and Petition of the Publicks (sic) true Friend & Brothers

ELIJAH WIMPEY

DAVID FOWLER

JOSEPH SHAUQUETHGENT

HENDRECH AUPAUMUT

JOSEPH QUAUNCKHAM

PETER POHQUENUMPEC

New-Stockbridge (NY)

Novr 28: 1787

Native Americans from Stockbridge, MA moved to this location during the American Revolution. The Stockbridge, refuges of tribes mainly of adjoining New York that had settled in the “prayer town” of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, accepted an invitation of the Oneidas to live and share on their reservation in New York. Stockbridge, NY was incorporated in 1791.

Brotherton, Novr 29: 1787.

Conn. Hist. Soc., Indian Papers

A journal of the daily travel of the Rev. Samson Occom in New Jersey

From Occom’s Journal – portions of above-referenced trip [edited by RW for clarity].

December 28, 1787: New Windsor, New York

December 29, 1787: Mr. Brewsters at Blooming Grove; Robinsons Tavern; Florida (NY)

December 30, 1787: Warwick (NY)

December 31, 1787: Mr. Smith’s Public House

January 1, 1788: To Rev. Baldwin’s house and lodged.

January 2, 1788: Went to Parsippany to Mr. Grovers and then back towards Rev. Baldwin.

January 3, 1788: In same area.

January 4, 1788: Called at Rev. Green’s and then went to Mr. Chapmans at Newark mountains [Jebediah Chapman was the master of the Orange Dale Academy. In 1790, Occom sent New Stockbridge resident John Quinney to the Academy.] Went to Crain’s Town and lodged with at Mr. Crain’s.

January 5, 1788: Set off for Horse Neck and put up at Esq. Crain’s. (Horse Neck Tract is present day Caldwell, Fairfield, Verona, Cedar Grove, and Essex Fells.)

January 6, 1788: After meeting, went on about three or four miles and lodged there.

January 7, 1788: Towards Morristown, stopped at Mr. Grover’s and later lodged at Morristown.

January 8, 1788: Went to Basking Ridge and attended the funeral of Rev. Canada’s daughter.

January 9, 1788: Got to Mill Stone and put up at a tavern.

January 10, 1788: At noon, arrived at Dr. Witherspoon’s house at Prince Town. Left and traveled to Black Horse Tavern (Columbus, Burlington County, New Jersey).

January 11, 1788: After eating, went on again. Got to Quakson towards night where there were three or four families of Indians, we called in at one, and they appeared extremely poor, so we went on and put up at a tavern [Red Lion?]. It was cold and we set up long and I was ill with a cold and cough.

January 12, 1788: After breakfast, set off again and got to Agepelack [Edgepillock] some time before night. Stopped and stayed at Friend Mytop’s house. I was very poor with my cold and coughed much.

Sabbath, January 13, 1788: Felt a little better and about 11 went to meeting, and there was not many people they had but little notice. I spoke from the Words, that which is wanting &c and the people attended well. After the service I went home with Daniel Simon to his mother-in-laws house [Widow Calvin] and stayed there all the week. Daniel Simon lost an only child this week and I preached a funeral discourse from the Words Set thy House &c and we had singing meetings every night, and prayed with them and gave them a word of exhortation.

Sabbath, January 20, 1788: Preached here again and it was very bad traveling, and there was a considerable number of people collected, and I spoke from [ ] and the people attended well, and after the meeting went back to Widow Calvin’s [widow of Stephen Calvin, son-in-law of Weequehela] and in the evening people came together and we had an exercise with Christian cards and we sang and prayed and it was a solemn time. Many were affected, and the people were very loath to leave the place & they stayed late.

January 21, 1788: We were up early and got ready as soon as we could. We took leave of the family and others came to take leave of us, and so we directed our course to Philadelphia and in the evening we got to the river against the City and we put up in a tavern one Friend Cooper.

February 22, 1788: About 10 we left Philadelphia and it was bad crossing the river. We went on ice most of the way over, and it was a cold day, and in the evening we got to Moorestown and Brother David [David Fowler] was sick, & Peter [Pauquunnuppeet] went [to] Agepelack, and dined and lodged in a tavern.

February 23, 1788: I went to Quakson [Coaxen] and left David very sick [at Moorestown] and got there before noon, and put up at a public house. In the afternoon, went to an Indian house, and towards night went to a public house.

February 24, 1788: About 11 went to meeting to a meeting house which Mr. John Brainerd used to preach to a number of Indians and there was considerable [number] of people and I spoke from Acts XI.26 and some time towards night, we went to Mount Holly, got there near sun set and we put up at Dr. Ross and David was very sick, and here we stayed some days, and I preached four times in this place.  (Acts 11:26 – “Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were call Christians first at Antioch.”)

February 29, 1788: I left Mount Holly and left David there as he was not well enough to set out. I got to Trenton in the evening. Called on Rev. Armstrong, but he was not home, so I went to a public house.

March 1, 1788: Went back to Bordentown.

March 2, 1788: Preached at Bordentown, went back to Trenton.

March 3, 1788: Went to the meeting house at Trenton and there were considerable people. In the afternoon, I went back to the Draw Bridge (at Bordentown) and had an evening meeting with a vast number of people.

March 4, 1788: David and I set off pretty early and we got to [      ] and lodged at Dutch Tavern.

March 5, 1788: Went to New Brunswick. David left a bundle and had to go back. At New Brunswick, went to see Rev. Munteeth, and then to Dr. Scott. At Dr. Scott’s, Peter was found; he had been straggling about a fortnight. In the evening there was a society and I spoke a few words by way of exhortation. Afterwards, we returned to Dr. Scott’s, where we lodged.

March 6, 1788: Visited several houses, and preached at the Presbyterian church. There was a large number of people. I lodged at Dr. Scott’s and David and Peter lodged in another house.

My Story: Rev. John Brainerd, Cumberland County 1751-1781

My Story: Rev. John Brainerd

Exploring Native American Sources Over a 30 Year Period

John Brainerd was born on February 28, 1720 in Haddam, CT. He had a vision to educate Native Americans in the colonies of New England and the Mid-Atlantic, including New Jersey. He graduated from Yale College in 1746 and received a Masters Degree from The College of New Jersey (Princeton) in 1749. He was a Presbyterian minister in Newark and New York before the French and Indian War. Her served as a chaplain in the Colonial Army during the French and Indian War, possibly between 1756 and 1759. He ministered to Christian Indian villages in Cranbury, Bridgetown, Mount Holly, Newark, and Deerfield in New Jersey. He also ministered to Native American communities in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. His brother David also ministered to Native Americans but died before John graduated from Yale.  John Brainerd was married twice. His first wife, Experience Lyon died in 1757, while John Brainerd was with the Colonial Army. The two children she gave birth to, died in their first year. He remarried Hannah Spencer from Lynn, MA (also Haddam, MA) in 1664.

These were the years of the Great Awakening and prominent clergy such as John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards preached the Bible, wrote songs, started schools, and ministered to colonial populations.

The French and Indian War, tough economic times after the French and Indian War, and the separation from England following the Declaration of Independence had a significant impact on the clergy who were supported by the Anglican Church of England, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. Most clergy returned to England after the Declaration of Independence. John Brainerd, Samson Occum, and Francis Asbury are prominent clergy who ministered to people in New Jersey.

“IN the year1777, at fifty-seven years of age, Mr.-Brainerd removed from Brotherton to Deerfield, in Cumberland County, N.J., and took charge of the church there. He still seems to have retained some oversight of the mission. In 1778, 1779, and1780, up to the year of his death, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia voted that ”the interest on the Indian fund be paid to Mr. Brainerd for his services among the Indians. “To the last of life he seems to have clung to his little flock, his first love, and his brethren did their best in a time of war to sustain him. Brotherton, the Indian settlement which he had aided to build up, and where for fifteen years he had resided, was situated in what is now a prosperous and pleasant rural neighborhood, near the present Shamong station, on the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad, about forty miles from Philadelphia. The “Historical Collections of New Jersey “give the following description:

“Edgepelick (or Indian Mills) is the name of a locality about three miles north of Atsion, where was the last Indian settlement in the State. The remnant of the tribe, consisting of about one hundred souls, emigrated to the West nearly half a century since. There is, however, a single family, but of mixed breed, residing in the vicinity ,in a log hut. Brainerd, the missionary, for a time resided among the Indians at this place. His dwelling-house stood about eight rods south of the saw-mill of Godfrey Hancock, on rising ground,  the site of which is still marked by depression, showing the precise spot where the cellar was. Within a few rods is the spring from which the family obtained water. The natives had a saw-mill on the site of Nicholas. Thompson’s mill, a quarter of a mile northeast of Brainerd’s house. Their burying-ground was on the edge of the pond about forty rods northwest of the same dwelling. In the vicinity stood their church, built of logs, and destroyed about thirty-five years since. After the Indians left, it was used by the whites for public worship.” (pp. 413, 14)

Use the sources below to discuss the following and debate the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed decision.

  1. What motivated young men from notable families to serve rural and Native American populations?  Was this the result of their college education, financial incentives, or personal motivation?
  2. How did conflict and war present barriers to the clergy who wanted to minister to people in a congregation or community?
  3. Was their motivation to preach the Word of God, educate Native American populations, or develop a larger church organization similar to what was established in Europe?
  4. Discuss the barriers John Brainerd faced in his travels, family life, with decisions of colonial governments, livelihood, and in ministering to people in need.

Decision: If you were John Brainerd, would you continue your ministry to Native Americans in New Jersey, or accept a position at an established congregation in a populated New Jersey community? (i.e. Newark, Princeton, Perth Amboy, New Brunswick, etc.)

Journal of John Brainerd (January 1761 – October 1762)

The Life of John Brainerd (1720-1781)  (Read pp. 409-420)

All related documents

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to Mr. Whitefield, 1759 November 3

Manuscript Number 759603

Date 3 November 1759

Abstract: Eleazar Wheelock writes of the progress at his school, and of the conditions under which he looks for more Indian pupils as well as public charity. He also mentions the ordination of Occom.

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to George Whitefield, 1761 July 4

Manuscript Number 761404

Date 4 July 1761

Abstract: Eleazar Wheelock writes to George Whitefield about first Occom’s mission to the Oneidas, and about the difficulties of teaching Indian students. He mentions the idea of appealing to the Earl of Dartmouth for charity.

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to John Brainerd, 1765 January 14

Manuscript Number 765114.3

Date 14 January 1765

Abstract: Wheelock writes to Brainerd about setting up a meeting with the Connecticut Board of Commissioners, and the proposed fundraising trip to England, which is complicated by a renewal of the Mason Land Case.

John Brainerd, letter, to Eleazar Wheelock, 1766 September 16

Manuscript Number 766516.1

Date 16 September 1766

Abstract: Brainerd writes about the apprehension of the murderers of two Indian women, includes letters from Francis Alison and John Ewing recommending John G. Kals as a teacher and missionary, and gives his own recommendation of Kals, with reservations.

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to Samson Occom, 1772 May 26

Manuscript Number 772326.2

Date 26 May 1772

Abstract: Wheelock asks Occom to join the mission of McClure and Frisbie to Muskingum.

Searching for Native Americans Living in New Jersey During the American Revolution

Searching for Native Americans Living in New Jersey During the American Revolution

By Robert Fenster

In a typical high school U.S. History course, the study of Native Americans is relegated to the initial encounters with a couple of interruptions to the timeline to focus on atrocities like the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee. In the Advanced Placement curriculum, the chronology starts in 1491, with a single thematic focus titled “Native American Societies Before European Contact.” The remaining handful of references to Native Americans are all in relation to their interactions with Europeans, often focusing on their victimization.[1]

Cognizant of my own complicity in this historical injustice, I seized the opportunity to take part in Telling Our Story: Living in New Jersey Before and During the American Revolution. My initial goal was to learn more about the Lenape in New Jersey around the time of the American Revolution. Unfortunately, I learned that the vast majority of the Lenape had left the state by the 1770s. Finding Native Americans in New Jersey who served in the war was going to prove difficult. Although I might have had more success finding Native Americans who fought in a New Jersey battle — on either side — my preference was to learn about those who lived here at the time, whether they served or not.

My initial search turned up three soldiers from New Jersey listed as Native Americans in government documents — William Cuffey, William Holmes, and Oliver Cromwell.[2] All three were most likely Black men who might have had some Native ancestry, but the documentation is sketchy at best. I didn’t feel comfortable with the evidence I had to conclusively state any were of Native American descent, so I turned my focus elsewhere.

As part of the participation in the grant, the goal was to find two distinct individuals to focus on. It would turn out that although the men who I profiled led very different lives, they had a considerable amount in common, including spending time at The College of New Jersey (now Princeton) and suffering unfortunate treatment from those of European descent, one worse than the other. Despite the negative outcomes for each, I was able to focus on their exercise of agency to provide a greater perspective on their life experiences.

The first individual I researched was George Morgan White Eyes, whose larger story required an examination of the life of his father Koquethagechton (aka White Eyes). As spokesman for his people, Koquethagechton addressed the Continental Congress in 1776 and ultimately negotiated a unique treaty at Fort Pitt in 1778, promising the creation of a Lenape state in Ohio Country and representation in Congress in exchange for hosting and guiding U.S. troops battling the British and Native American enemies in the war. Ultimately the land was granted, but not the other provisions. The premature death of White Eyes at the age of 48 was initially falsified as being the result of smallpox, but the truth ultimately came out that he had been assassinated by a member of the American militia in Michigan.

Young White Eyes’ mother, Rachel Doddridge, had her own compelling story. A British-born white woman who was kidnapped and raised by the Lenape, was given multiple chances to leave and live among Americans or British people once more, but opted to stay living among the Lenape. She too would be murdered by white men, a decade after her husband’s demise.

Care of their young son went to George Morgan, a U.S. Indian agent and a close friend. Young George Morgan White Eyes had, of course, been named after Morgan. After showing tremendous academic skill, Young White Eyes would be sent to study in New Jersey, with his expenses being paid by the Continental Congress after George Morgan exhorted the Congress for “a continuance of the patronage of Congress to this worthy orphan whose father was treacherously put to death at the moment of his greatest exertions to serve the United States.”[3]

Young White Eyes would receive assistance for a number of years, but ran into trouble at Princeton more than once, and evidently became somewhat disillusioned after learning the truth about his parents’ deaths. In a remarkable series of letters, he wrote directly to President George Washington about his needs and wishes for his future which ranged from wanting to finish his education elsewhere to getting a job to finally returning to his people.[4] Although it took some time, Washington did intercede on his behalf and helped fulfill that final wish. Unfortunately, the life of George Morgan White Eyes ended in tragedy as he drunkenly picked a fight with a young white man who, in self defense, killed his attacker.

The violent deaths of all three of the members of the White Eyes family is a triple tragedy, but not without moments of achievement and agency — Koquethagechton’s advocacy for his people, Rachel Doddridge’s decision to remain living as a Native American, and George Morgan White Eyes’ participation in the direction of his life make them more than mere victims.

Although the family’s story was absolutely worth telling, I was hoping to find someone who lived in New Jersey for a longer period of time. In my research I found a number of interesting events that happened up to and during the Seven Years’ War, including diplomatic conferences held in Crosswicks, New Jersey and Easton, Pennsylvania in the mid 1750s, leading to the significant reduction of Native lands. When I learned that Brotherton, the first Native American reservation in the colonies, was created in South Jersey in 1759, I was hopeful I could find a person who lived there between its creation and dissolution in 1802.

The person who I focused on was Shawuskukhkung or Bartholomew Scott Calvin. Once again the story needs to start at least a generation earlier (and in his case could go back several generations and be historically powerful). His father Stephen Calvin chose his name as a tribute to his conversion to Presbyterian theology. Stephen was integral in the aforementioned negotiations that led to the creation of Brotherton. Bartholomew was only three years old, but among the 200 Native Americans who settled there. Like George Morgan White Eyes, he attended Princeton for a time, but with his bills being paid by the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge. The outbreak of the American Revolution terminated his studies, and at some point he enlisted in the military, serving in the Pennsylvania Line. I was only able to determine that he saw active duty in 1780, but further records or writings were elusive.

            After the war, Bartholomew would become a teacher, educating not only children from the reservation, but white children from the surrounding towns. Unfortunately, Brotherton’s life was short-lived due to a combination of bad luck, bad environment, and bad neighbors. By 1801, only 63 adult residents were left in Brotherton. Bartholomew and other leaders on the reservation made the difficult decision to accept an invitation to merge with the Stockridge Indians near Oneida Lake in New York. Two decades later the merged groups of Native Americans would move to Michigan finding life on the east coast no longer desirable.

Bartholomew would eventually return to New Jersey at age 76 to address thestate legislature asking to sell their retained rights of hunting and fishing on their lands to the State of New Jersey. He said the following:

“My brethren, I am old, and weak and poor, and therefore a fit representative of my people. You are young and strong, and rich, and therefore fit representatives of your people, but let me beg you for a moment to lay aside the recollections of your strength and our weakness that your minds may be prepared to examine with candor the subject of our claims… We consider the State Legislature the proper purchaser, and throw ourselves upon its benevolence and magnanimity, trusting that feelings of justice and liberality will induce you to give us what you deem a compensation.”[5]

In the end the State of New Jersey paid $2,000 (rough equivalent of $70,000 in modern currency) to officially end any Native American claims in New Jersey. I found the speech fascinating. Did Bartholomew Calvin genuinely believe what he was saying about the fair and equitable treatment by the state of New Jersey or did he choose a strategy he thought most likely to result in a positive outcome? Either way, he advocated for his people and was able to bring them something in the waning days of his life.

There are undoubtedly many more stories of New Jersey Native Americans from this time period that can be told, whether they are among those living in Brotherton, those who assimilated into New Jersey life, or those who served on either side of the American Revolution. There is ample work to be done by historians here.

[1] https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

[2] https://www.dar.org/library/forgotten-patriots/forgotten-patriots-book

[3] http://ppolinks.com/bartlesvillehistory/1960725601.pdf

[4] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0318

[5] Barber, J. W., Howe, H. (1868). Historical Collections of New Jersey: Past and Present, Containing a General Collection of the Most Interesting Facts, Traditions, Biographical Sketches, Anecdotes, Etc., Relating to the History and Antiquities…. United States: J.W. Barber.

My Story: Shawuskuuhkung – Bartholomew Scott Calvin, Burlington County, 1756 to 1840

My Story: Shawuskukhkung / Bartholomew Scott Calvin

Burlington County, NJ, 1756 to 1840

Shawuskukhkung or Bartholomew Scott Calvin was born around 1756 in Crosswicks, New Jersey. His father Stephen Calvin, was the first generation of his family to adopt a Western name, most likely for the convenience of white people he interacted with, choosing a surname befitting the family’s recent conversion to Presbyterianism. Many of their fellow Lenape (or Delaware) kin had left New Jersey years prior, resettling in Ohio, but a number of families opted to stay and attempt to live among the European settlers.

In 1758, Stephen Calvin was involved in the negotiations in Crosswicks that resulted in Native Americans giving up all land claims south of the Raritan River. At the same time, the remaining Delaware were given 3,284 acres of land in modern day Shamong, New Jersey. Brotherton, as it was called, would be the first Indian Reservation. Whites were prohibited from settling, hunting, or fishing in their territory. The colony and later state of New Jersey would help with enforcement and in fact, would subsidize the community economically for many years.

The Brotherton Reservation was settled in 1759 by 200 Indians. Children were frequently sent to schools for the training of missionaries, which often included forced assimilation into the white culture. The Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge took an interest in Bartholomew Calvin and began paying his way to the College of New Jersey (later Princeton). However, by 1775 with increasing hostilities arising between the colonies and the government of Great Britain, their funds were needed elsewhere and the young student was left with a difficult decision.

Decision Activity #1

Consider Bartholomew Calvin’s situation. What are the pros and cons of each of the following possible choices?

  • Look for another source of funding for completing his education.
  • Return to his home in Brotherton and figure out what to do with the rest of his life without his degree.
  • Join the military to resist the British government in the hopes that the new country will offer gratitude to the Native Americans who supported the cause (or because he genuinely believed in their fight).
  • Join the military to fight for the British government in the hopes that they win and offer some kind of benefit to his people in exchange for military service.

Little is known about Calvin’s military service. While it is possible that he enlisted as early as 1775, the only fixed date we know is that he was in service for the Pennsylvania Line in September of 1780 and saw active duty.

Meanwhile, conditions were deteriorating in Brotherton. Most of the inhabitants were living in abject poverty while harassment from white locals increased over time. In 1767 and again in 1771, members of the Ohio Delaware tribe, their kinsmen, invited the Brotherton Indians to join them. Apparently, this offer was not to their liking as they instead sought permission from the government of New Jersey to lease some of their land to whites. Despite the rejection of this economic lifeline, the Brotherton Indians opted to stay.

After Bartholomew Calvin’s service in the Revolution concluded, he returned to Brotherton where he became schoolmaster, following in his father’s footsteps. Apparently, many of his students were white locals who he welcomed into his rolls.

But by 1801, only 63 adult residents (down from the original 200) were left in Brotherton. At this time, a group of Mohican Indians living in New Stockbridge near Oneida Lake in the state of New York offered them an unusual invitation: “Kinsmen! Our necks are stretched as long as cranes looking toward your firesides! Pack up your mat and come eat out of our dish!”

Decision Activity #2

Anyone who has moved understands how disruptive and difficult the experience can be financially and emotionally. To move an entire community with the additional uncertainty of joining another group must have been a daunting consideration. That being said, things were looking very bleak for the remaining Delaware in New Jersey. Weigh the consequences of the following choices faced by Bartholomew Calvin and the other people at Brotherton:

  • Stay put. After all, this is the land your father negotiated for. Times may be tough, but who knows what would await us in New York?
  • Take the Stockbridge Indians up on their offer. Although they are not direct relatives, you have enough in common with them that you can make it work.
  • Reconsider the offer from Ohio. Life in the state of New York is not likely to be much better than life in New Jersey.

Calvin and other leaders of the community petitioned the State of New Jersey to allow them to sell their lands to finance the journey. The legislature would allow it, provided that three quarters of the adults in the community consented. It appears that they fell short of the required supermajority, but the sale proceeded in 1802 regardless. A few of the inhabitants of Brotherton chose not to make the journey to New York and became integrated into white communities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Calvin continued as schoolmaster in Stockbridge.

In 1824 most of the community of Stockbridge Indians, which now included at least four different Native groups, moved to a tract of land near Green Bay in what was then considered Michigan Territory. A small number of people who had moved from Brotherton to New York opted to return to New Jersey. Calvin, however, made the trek to the new homeland, but he wasn’t quite done with New Jersey.

In 1832, at the age of 76, he returned to New Jersey as the delegate of the “original people” and addressed the state legislature. Although they had sold the reservation land back in 1802, the right to hunt and fish on that land was still theirs. Perhaps the State of New Jersey would consider buying those rights, and thereby help the remaining Delaware who had gone through so much.

What is the likelihood of success for each of the following strategies:

  • Based on the principles in the Declaration of Independence, demand just compensation for the rights to hunt and fish as well as money for the trouble the Delaware people experienced.
  • Make a speech that is highly complementary of the New Jersey government in the hopes that they’ll be more willing to give the Delaware something for their troubles.
  • Don’t bother. The idea of the government doing anything for the Delaware at this point in time is very unlikely.

In his address to the Legislature, Calvin said the following:

“My brethren, I am old, and weak and poor, and therefore a fit representative of my people. You are young and strong, and rich, and therefore fit representatives of your people, but let me beg you for a moment to lay aside the recollections of your strength and our weakness that your minds may be prepared to examine with candor the subject of our claims… We consider the State Legislature the proper purchaser, and throw ourselves upon its benevolence and magnanimity, trusting that feelings of justice and liberality will induce you to give us what you deem a compensation.”

Perhaps understanding that his bargaining power was rather limited, Calvin left the determination of an amount up to the Legislature, which in turn provided a modest $2,000 purchasing price, the rough equivalent of $70,000 in present day currency.

The History of the Lenni Lenape Before, During, and After the American Revolution

The History of the Lenni-Lenape Before, During, and After the American Revolution

(Image courtesy of Legends of America)

By Mr. David A. Di Costanzo, M. Ed Social Studies Department Chair Vineland High School

Introduction:

During the first year of this grant, seven Social Studies teachers from around the state conducted research for the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies (NJCSS). The teachers examined the histories of ordinary people in New Jersey and how the events leading up to and during the Revolutionary War impacted their lives. The grant, “Telling Our Story: Living in New Jersey Before and During the American Revolution”, is an ongoing effort by the NJCSS to prepare educators in New Jersey for the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution during the 2025-26 school year. The 250th anniversary celebrations will continue through 2031 and is part of the overall mission of the NJCSS to provide and make available meaningful lessons and activities to students, teachers, and the public.

During Year Two of the grant, the focus of the research has shifted to include the role and contributions of African Americans, Native Americans, and prisoners of war before, during, and after the American Revolution. An emphasis on the experiences of women and children during this time period will also be researched. The lives of the Lenni-Lenape from New Jersey before, during, and after the American Revolution is a fascinating and important part of American history. Professor of History and Native American Studies Colin G. Calloway from Dartmouth University said, “with few exceptions, the Indian story in the Revolution remains relegated to secondary importance and easy explanation: The Indians chose the wrong side and lost. To better understand the reality of the Revolution for American Indians, we need to shift our focus to Indian country and to the Indian community.” [1] Sadly, the story of the Lenni-Lenape during this time period has been “relegated to secondary importance” and not been told enough.

The role of Lenni-Lenape is crucial in our understanding of the American experience. What was lifelike for the Lenni-Lenape in New Jersey?  Unfortunately, the Lenni-Lenape, dealt with racist mindsets which were the primary impetus that led to a negative and mostly superficial historiography of their culture that took centuries to completely shift. Historical perceptions and the racial mindsets of Native Americans did eventually change but only after they were deprived of their land, forced to live on reservations, and required to assimilate into mainstream American culture.  

It’s also important to note that for Native Americans the Revolutionary War began way before Lexington and Concord.  Most historians agree that the American Indians had been fighting for their own independence since the Europeans made contact.  Accepting and embracing the fate of the Lenni-Lenape and discovering how people lived before and during the American Revolution in New Jersey is important work. It allows students and residents in various counties throughout New Jersey to discover a more objective truth about Native Americans before and during the American Revolution. This more objective truth is an honest attempt to provide greater transparency for everyone, whether they agree with it or not.

Historical Background:

The cultural history of Native Americans is interesting for a variety of reasons. The treatment of Native Americans is viewed by most historians as horrific. Native Americans were systematically excluded from having a true voice during European exploration and colonization as well as after the United States was founded. The explorers ravaged the indigenous people of this continent with violence, disease and deprivation.  Native Americans had non-Christian spiritual beliefs which went against the religious doctrine of the early explorers. This difference in cultures created a severe spiritual divide.  Later on, colonists traded with Native Americans but European settlers viewed them as nothing more than savages and barbarians. 

            By the nineteenth century, Native Americans had no choice but to assimilate in order to survive. Forced assimilation in order to survive is not the same thing as having a legitimate stake in the system.  Time has made most ethnicities, including American Indians, a larger part of the American landscape. All of these factors created a system of severe limitations for most Native Americans that still lingers today.  The situation in New Jersey regarding the treatment of the Lenni-Lenape was similar to the way Native Americans were dealt with throughout the colonies and the United States.

            The Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey are descendants of the Paleo-Indian whose history on this continent has been traced back to 13,000 years ago.  The Lenni-Lenape were also referred to as the Delaware Indians by the English and the Dutch.  Professor of History Maxine Lurie from Seton Hall University and Professor of Anthropology Richard Veit from Monmouth University said, “the first settlers to reach what is now New Jersey probably did so during or before the Paleo-Indian period.  Archaeological sites from this period are quite rare.” [2] Nevertheless, Paleo-Indian artifacts have been found across New Jersey as well as in New York and Pennsylvania. Excavations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries confirmed the presence of Paleo-Indians throughout New Jersey.

            Various cultural periods would ensue for the next several thousand years leading to the final phase prior to European contact which is referred to as the Woodland Period.  This period began roughly a thousand years ago and continued until contact with Europeans during the early sixteenth century. [3] The earliest reports of contact with European explorers occurred in 1524 when Giovanni da Verrazano explored the Atlantic coast of North America. He described the natives in and around what today is New Jersey as “most loving”. [4]  Contact with whites was sporadic until the early 1600’s. The interactions with the Lenni-Lenape and the explorers increased and progressed during the early seventeenth century and beyond. 

            The Dutch and English had a sincere desire to trade with the American Indians from the Garden State.  It’s well documented that, “the Dutch West India Company, formed in Holland in 1621 to develop commerce, especially fur trading, constituted the present New Jersey Hudson River area into the province of New Nether (often “New Netherlands”) in 1623.” [5]  Furs, cooper, and other perishable commodities, such as alcohol, were all eagerly exchanged.  It became clear almost immediately that most Native Americans didn’t react well to the consumption of alcohol.  This inability to consume alcohol in moderation was something European traders would quickly learn to take advantage of without hesitation. The Dutch and English traded with the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey in spite of the animosity and racism that existed.  Most Dutch traders had very little respect for the American Indians.

This map is from John Snyder’s The Story of New Jersey Civil Boundaries 1202-1968 

This map shows various Indian trails that crisscrossed New Jersey. The Assunpink Trail goes from the lower left on the Delaware River and continues northward, crosses the Raritan River and heads for Staten Island.

            An unintended consequence or impact of European exploration was the massive spread of numerous diseases. Professor Lurie and Professor Veit, said that in and around New Jersey

“The impact of disease on Native American populations was disastrous. Population estimates for the Lenape vary significantly, with some scholars arguing for 12,000 natives at the time of European contact and others for much smaller numbers.  In the seventeenth century smallpox epidemics, malaria, measles, and influenza significantly reduced the Native American population” [6]

Like all of the other Native American tribes in North America, disease had a devastating effect on the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey that would linger on for decades.  It put the indigenous people of this continent at a serious disadvantage from the beginning of their contact with the Europeans.

            In spite of the effects of alcohol and disease on the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey, they maintained a serious control of trade during most of the seventeenth century. Professor of History Jean Soderlund from Lehigh University said that

“Because of mythology, the Lenape are often portrayed as a weak people lacking the numbers and fortitude to defend their homeland.  The prevailing narrative ignores the period of 1615-1681 when the Lenape dominated trade and determined if, when and where Europeans could travel and take up land.” [7] 

Except for the Pavonia Massacre in February of 1643, the Lenni-Lenape avoided major conflicts during this time period. This was in stark contrast to the Anglo-Powhatan War and Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia which were both larger in terms of the number of people that were killed. [8]  The Pavonia Massacre was the first known attack led by Dutch soldiers that saw over one hundred Native American men, women, and children slaughtered in the area of what is today Jersey City.  After the massacre, hostilities would remain for almost three years until a truce was agreed to in 1645.

A Depiction of the Pavonia Massacre in 1643 (Image courtesy of Timetoast)

Professor Soderlund said “the Lenapes’ firm grip on south and central New Jersey is clear in a map from 1670 created by a merchant named Augustine Herrman, who had settled in New Amsterdam in 1644 and then established his plantation, Bohemia Manor, on the Maryland Eastern Shore in 1661.” [9] The map below shows New Jersey illustrated on the lower right-side of the map.  Numerous Lenape populated the area shown on the map that constitutes most of present-day New Jersey. This map is definitive evidence of the control the Lenni-Lenape had over New Jersey during the late seventeenth century.  

A map by Augustine Hermann of Virginia and Maryland and New Jersey as it was planted and inhabited in 1670, W. Faithorne, sculpt.  (Map courtesy of the Library of Congress)

            The Lenni-Lenape had an interesting relationship with the Quakers, especially in West Jersey. The influence of the Quakers could be felt throughout New Jersey during the colonial period.  Professor of History Richard McCormick from Rutgers University said

“Lacking the peculiar fervor that had stamped them as religious radicals in the previous century, the Quakers manifested increasing concern with social problems and took leadership in many areas of humanitarian reform.  Impelled by that saintly friend, John Woolman, of Mount Holly that came out firmly against slave holding in 1758, displayed a deep concern for the plight of the Indians, developed a system of education, and even began to withdraw from political activities because of their opposition to the war and military preparations.” [10]

Unfortunately, the Quakers, as well as other religious groups were guilty of displacing the Lenni-Lenape particularly in West Jersey and in Pennsylvania.  Professor McCormick made it clear that the Quakers weren’t transparent with the Native Americans of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, including the Lenni-Lenape, in various land deals.

            During the eighteenth century, the relationship between the Lenni-Lenape and the colonists would continue to deteriorate. Land ownership became a major issue throughout New Jersey, as well as the rest of the colonies, as the English took over control and established their dominance throughout the continent.             Several Lenape chiefs attempted to secure land deals with the New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware colonies. These efforts culminated in the Walking Purchase of 1737. Chief Tishcohan (or He Who Never Blackens Himself) was one of the signers of the Walking Purchase of 1737, a treaty with the Penn family that later caused the Lenape to lose most of their land in the Delaware Valley.  It’s certain that “the infamous Walking Purchase defrauded them of considerable land in eastern Pennsylvania.  The Walking Purchase led to years of recriminations and bad feelings. [11] 

Delaware Chief Tishcohan

Tishcohan by Gustavus Hesselius. A 1735 portrait of the Delaware chief Tishcohan, commissioned by John Penn. William Penn’s son. (Portrait courtesy of the Millstone Valley Scenic Byway)

            Another victim of the Walking Purchase, Chief Teedyuscung would eventually leave New Jersey and make his way to Bensalem and align himself with the Moravians. Prior to the American Revolution Chief Teedyuscung would be killed by white vigilantes.  These killings made it clear that it was in the best interest of the Lenape to continue moving west. The legacies of both Chief Tishcohan and Chief Teedyuscung  include their efforts in trying to preserve the culture and legal rights of the Lenape.

Chief Teedyuscung

A depiction of Teedyuscung (Image courtesy of the Wissahickon Valley Park)

            The role of religion became even more prominent during this time period.  Missionaries from various Christian faiths made attempts at converting numerous Native American tribes including the Lenni-Lenape. Associate Professor of History Linford D. Fisher from Brown University said “the rich, overlapping worlds of Native spirituality and Christian practice, one in which the rituals, symbols, and beliefs of European Christianity were adopted by Indians over time, either voluntarily or in response to the overtures of English missionaries.” [12]

One missionary, David Brainerd, played an important role in attempting the religious conversion of the Lenni-Lenape. Professor Lurie and Professor Veit said that “Presbyterian missionaries also were active among the Delaware.  In 1745, David Brainerd, a young Presbyterian minister who belonged to the New Light faction of the church, which emphasized personal salvation and evangelical zeal, began mission work among the Lenape.” [13]  David Brainerd died in 1747 and was succeeded by his brother John who held similar beliefs regarding personal salvation and missionary work.  John Brainerd would be instrumental in the conferences the New Jersey Colonial government held in 1756 and 1758 in which the colony attempted to address the Native Americans consumption of alcohol and made clear the process for selling Indian lands. [14] 

            Throughout the French and Indian War, countless Native American tribes fought on the side of the British and the French. Numerous tribes, including the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey, signed the Treaty of Easton of 1758. Part of the treaty included a provision that the Lenni-Lenape avoid alliances with the French during the war. They also had to forfeit their eastern lands. In return, the British promised to stop expeditions into Indian territory west of the Alleghenies. As a result, many Lenape left New Jersey.  It was around this time that New Jersey created its first Indian reservation, which was called “Brotherton,” and was located in the present-day Indian Mills section of Shamong in Burlington County.   Reverend John Brainerd assisted in the settlement of the reservation. [15] A result of the Treaty of Easton was the establishment of a permanent home for the Lenape that initially saw some success but was ultimately unsuccessful.       

            The Native Americans throughout the colonies had a very distinct role during the American Revolution.  Professor Wilcomb E. Washburn, the former Director for the Smithsonian’s American Studies Program said, “it was a shadowy role, but an important one. It was shadowy not only because the Indian operated physically from the interior forests of North America and made his presence felt suddenly and violently on the seaboard settlements, but because the Indian was present also in the subconscious mind of the colonists as a central ingredient in the conflict with the Mother Country.” [16]  The British and the Colonists made numerous attempts to form alliances with various tribes throughout the colonies.  There was some success in getting the Indians to align with one side or the other. 

            The Lenni-Lenape from New Jersey had already begun to leave by the start of the American Revolution. The Lenape were a divided people with only a small number remaining in the Garden State, while most moved north or west. [17] The Lenni-Lenape that remained in New Jersey during the American Revolution played a significant role. Professor Lurie said,

“During the Revolution, the western Delaware at first tried to stay neutral, but then split as some joined with the British, while others sided with the Patriots.  Thus, this also became a civil war for them.  The United States signed a treaty in 1778 with the chiefs who sided with the Patriots, but White Eyes, the strongest supporter, was murdered, promised supplies were not delivered, and villages of friendly natives were attacked.  In the end, the results were disastrous for the Delaware, whichever side they took, as well as for members of other Indian nations.” [18] 

Following the Revolution, the Lenni-Lenape of New Jersey suffered through more broken promises first by the British, who basically abandoned them, and then by the United States government.  By the early nineteenth century, most of the Lenni-Lenape either integrated into the local communities in New Jersey or left the state.  Many went to Canada or the Kansas Territory while others joined other Native American tribes such as the Cherokee.  Others ventured west to “Indian territory” which is today Oklahoma.

            During the nineteenth century, Native Americans, including the Lenni-Lenape, were instrumental in shaping abolitionism, both as participants in antislavery activities and as objects of concern.  In fact, abolitionist support for Native Americans before the Civil War did exist.  Unfortunately, it’s made clear that not all politicians from New Jersey supported both Native American rights and the abolition of slavery. Associate Professor of History Natalie Joy from Northern Illinois University said,

“Especially disappointing was New Jersey senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, among the most vociferous congressional opponents of removal and yet an avowed supporter of the American Colonization Society. Though they praised his “unwearied zeal in the cause of the injured and insulted Cherokees, abolitionists highlighted Frelinghuysen’s continued disengagement with the antislavery cause.” [19]

It appears that Congressman Frelinghuysen was against Indian removal but refused to support the abolition of slavery. This is not surprisingly particularly since New Jersey was the last northern state to abolish slavery following the Civil War. After rejecting the 13th Amendment, New Jersey did finally ratify it on January 23, 1866. 

            By the conclusion of the Civil War, many Lenni-Lenape were living in Kansas. Professor of History C.A. Weslager from Widener University said, “in the winter of 1866, the Department of Indian Affairs brought to Washington the chiefs and councils representing the Indian tribes living in Kansas for the purpose of persuading them to sell their reservations and move to new homes in what was then called Indian Territory, or even further west.” [20]  Treaties were made with various Native American tribes including the Lenni-Lenape.  The Lenni-Lenape sold or gave up their land holdings in Kansas and settled in Oklahoma.

Jennie Bobb, and her daughter, Nellie Longhat, both Delaware (Lenape), Oklahoma, 1915. (Photo courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington)

            The remaining Lenni-Lenape that stayed in Oklahoma were the final collective remnants of a once proud, dominant, and successful people.  Many had already assimilated into American culture by the end of the nineteenth century.  Continued pressure from the United States government would force even more Lenni-Lenape to integrate into white communities.  Sadly, this indigenous group, like the vast majority of other Native American tribes, were systematically deprived of their land, forced to live on reservations, and required to assimilate into mainstream American culture. Professor Weslager said, “by 1946, Congress established the Indian Claims Commission to act as a court and provide a regular means of adjudicating claims involving injuries to Indian tribal groups.” [21]  Historians have surmised that this commission was essentially an admission of guilt by the United States Government. The Indian Claims Commission would go on to adjudicate hundreds of claims and award millions of dollars to various Native Americans.  Reparations would be awarded to the Lenni-Lenape and start to be distributed during the late 1960s. 

Conclusion:

            The lives of the Lenni-Lenape from New Jersey before, during, and after the American Revolution is a fascinating and important part of American history. They were a thriving and successful culture until European contact. The Lenni-Lenape were able to remain successful in New Jersey for over a century after European colonization. The Lenni-Lenape had largely left by the beginning of the American Revolution.  However, those who remained did play a role.  During the American Revolution, there was some success in getting the Indians to align with one side or the other.  Regardless, as the United States continued to develop and grow the Native Americans of this continent were deprived of their natural and lawful rights. Native Americans were systematically excluded from having a true voice during European exploration and colonization as well as after the United States was founded.

            By the nineteenth century, Native Americans had no choice but to assimilate in order to survive. Forced assimilation in order to survive is not the same thing as having a legitimate stake in the system.  Time has made most ethnicities, including American Indians, a larger part of the American composition. The role of Lenni-Lenape is crucial in our understanding of the American experience. Regrettably, the Lenni-Lenape, dealt with racist mindsets which were the primary impetus that led to a negative and mostly superficial historiography of their culture that took centuries to completely shift. Historical perceptions and the racial mindsets of Native Americans did eventually change but only after they were deprived of their land, forced to live on reservations, and required to assimilate into mainstream American culture.

Works Cited

Calloway, Colin G. “‘We Have Always Been the Frontier’: The American Revolution in Shawnee Country.” American Indian Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1992): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1185604.

Fisher, Linford D. “Native Americans, Conversion, and Christian Practice in Colonial New England, 1640-1730.” The Harvard Theological Review 102, no. 1 (2009): 102.

Joy, Natalie. “The Indian’s Cause: Abolitionists and Native American Rights.” Journal of the Civil War Era 8, no. 2 (2018).

Lurie, Maxine N., and Richard F. Veit. New Jersey: A History of the Garden State. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers   University Press, 2018.

Lurie, Maxine N. Taking Sides in Revolutionary New Jersey Caught in the Crossfire. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2022

McCormick Richard P. New Jersey from Colony to State 1609 to 1789. The New Jersey Historical Series, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1964.

Snyder, John Parr. The Story of New Jersey’s Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968. Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, Geological Survey, 1969.

Soderlund, Jean R. Lenape Country: Delaware Valley Society Before William Penn. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. Indians and the American Revolution. Accessed December 14, 2022. https://www.americanrevolution.org/ind1.php. 

 Weslager, C. A. The Delaware Indians: A History. Rutgers University Press, 1972.

[1] Calloway, Colin G. “‘We Have Always Been the Frontier’: The American Revolution in Shawnee Country.” American Indian Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1992): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1185604.

[2] Lurie, Maxine N., and Richard F. Veit. New Jersey: A History of the Garden State. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers   University Press, 2018, 11.

[3] Lurie & Veit, 16.

[4] Lurie & Veit, 18.

[5] Snyder, John Parr. The Story of New Jersey’s Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968. Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, Geological Survey, 1969.

[6] Lurie & Veit, 20.

[7] Soderlund, Jean R. Lenape Country: Delaware Valley Society Before William Penn. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015, 5.

[8] Soderlund, 5.

[9] Soderlund, 2.

[10] McCormick Richard P. New Jersey from Colony to State 1609 to 1789. The New Jersey Historical Series, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1964, 95.

[11] Lurie & Veit, 25.

[12] Fisher, Linford D. “Native Americans, Conversion, and Christian Practice in Colonial New England, 1640-1730.” The Harvard Theological Review 102, no. 1 (2009): 102.

[13] Lurie & Veit, 24.

[14] Lurie & Veit, 24.

[15] Lurie & Veit, 25.

[16] Washburn, Wilcomb E. Indians and the American Revolution. Accessed December 14, 2022. https://www.americanrevolution.org/ind1.php. 

[17] Lurie, Maxine N. Taking Sides in Revolutionary New Jersey Caught in the Crossfire. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2022, 107.

[18] Lurie, 8.

[19] Joy, Natalie. “The Indian’s Cause: Abolitionists and Native American Rights.” Journal of the Civil War Era 8, no. 2 (2018): 222.

[20] Weslager, C. A. The Delaware Indians: A History. Rutgers University Press, 1972, 421.

[21] Weslager, 457.

Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day?

Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day?

On October 11, 2021, cities across the United States celebrated Indigenous People’s Day. The idea of a day celebrating the indigenous peoples of the Americas was first introduced at the United Nations in 1977. In 2007, a UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People declared that October 12 would be an International Day of Solidarity with the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. On October 12, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a proclamation recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ Day. However, Hochul also marched in a Columbus Day parade. President Joe Biden issued a similar proclamation declaring that “On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, our Nation celebrates the invaluable contributions and resilience of Indigenous peoples, recognizes their inherent sovereignty, and commits to honoring the Federal Government’s trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations.”

In New Jersey, legislation was introduced in the State Assembly to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day as an official state holiday but it did not pass. Newark has recognized Indigenous People’s Day since 2017 and Princeton since 2019. New Jersey has three state-recognized tribes, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribal Nation, the Powhatan Renape Nation, and the Ramapough Lunaape Nation. It also has the largest concentration of people of Italian ancestry in the United States. Columbus Day has been celebrated since 1937. Jameson Sweet, a Rutgers University professor, argues that switching from Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day is “about acknowledging this difficult past that is usually erased.” Joseph Pennacchio, a Republican state senator from Morris County, responds that Columbus’ voyages “The bottom line is that little flicker of flame started what we now know as America.”

Lisa DuBois, New York–based artist curator and photojournalist, Social Documentary Network: “We are at the start of a new age in American history, one in which the past will be examined more closely. Thirteen states do not observe Columbus Day as a public holiday. Indigenous Peoples’ Day or Native American Day is observed and celebrated in Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin and South Dakota instead of Columbus Day. For centuries, we have been misled by skewed interpretations of historical events, and fiction has turned into perceived facts. We as a society recoil when confronted with unpleasant realities, and a minority must bear the responsibility of enlightening others with the truth, due to multigenerational impressions carried along with the fervor of religious and or political convictions on topics such as slavery and Native American genocide. Columbus Day will evolve into an Italian American appreciation day as the focus shifts to the magnificent contributions that Italian Americans have made to the diversity of a new multicultural America, and Columbus will claim his rightful place in history as a ruthless explorer.

Karla Freire, Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School, Queens, New York: “I firmly believe that Columbus Day should be permanently renamed “Indigenous Peoples Day” in order to commemorate the millions of lives that were lost in the Americas during European conquest in the 15th and 16th centuries. Additionally, it should be a day to openly acknowledge and reflect upon the traumatic effects of colonialism that are still felt by Indigenous peoples and people of indigenous descent, today. The name “Columbus Day” needs to become a remnant of the past. It should be referred to as “Indigenous Peoples Day” on a national level. To continue to honor Columbus, as a country, is deeply harmful and offensive to indigenous peoples of the United States, as well as some within the Latinx community, like Latinx people of indigenous descent. As a Latina of indigenous descent, it pains me to think about anyone honoring Columbus or when people are upset regarding its name change. Many people in “defense” of Columbus Day do not realize or fully process the horrific, dishonorable behavior Columbus and his men carried out in the Americas after 1492. According to historical accounts, written by Columbus himself, the peoples Europeans first encountered were peaceful, gentle, and even generous towards them. Yet, Columbus and his men, fueled by greed and cruelty, tortured and murdered them. They brutally raped women and young girls. Dogs, trained to kill, were brought from Spain to attack and murder any “disobedient” or “rebellious” indigenous peoples. To defend Columbus and regard him as a man that deserves statues and a holiday dedicated to him, demonstrates a fundamental lack of historical knowledge, depth, and empathy.

For those that state it is unfair to Italians, it denies them an opportunity to celebrate their heritage – I ask the following questions: Do you really want to celebrate your heritage using a despicable person, like Columbus, as your cultural representative? There are so many other Italian figures who can be honored and used to represent your culture, who are not problematic–why not pick someone, like Mother Cabrini, to honor instead? Finally, the most important question for Columbus Day defenders is: Why are you still so willing to celebrate your heritage through Columbus, even though he was a man who tried to erase my own heritage and culture?”

Culturally Responsiveness through the Eyes of an Indian American Educator

Sheena Jacobs
Coordinator for Social Studies, Glen Cove School District

“I, too, sing America. I am the darker brother. They send me to eat in the kitchen when company comes, but I laugh, and eat well, and grow strong. Tomorrow, I’ll be at the table when company comes. Nobody will dare say to me, “Eat in the kitchen,” then. Besides, they’ll see how beautiful I am and be ashamed—I, too, am America” (Hughes, 2012).

James Mercer Langston Hughes was a famous American writer who was known best for being a leader of the Harlem Renaissance in New York City. Through his writings, he spoke about the inequalities that Blacks faced in our nation. He wrote and talked about the trials and tribulations that society has put on Blacks, and he questioned all aspects that are a nation is derived from, which are political, social, and economic. Reflecting on Langston Hughes poem, “I, Too,” and in the current political and social climate that we are living in, we are reminded that now more than ever, schools must embrace diversity and become culturally responsive. We are currently living in a society where the haves are at an advantage point, and the have-nots are at a disadvantage. For social mobility, we must provide equal and quality education for all children.

Unfortunately in the 21st century, we still face segregation and inequalities within schools from various regions, such as rural, urban and suburban areas. According to Leonard Valverde article titled, “Equal Educational Opportunity Since Brown: four major development” (2004) research has indicated the following implications are all steps to assist the segregation, promotion of equality and quality of education for all children.

  • Implication #1: Compensatory Education for Equal Treatment Programs stimulated and encouraged by federal funding
  • Implication #2: School Financing: Equity and Adequacy—Includes facilities, equipment, and personnel; inclusion and access using affirmative action
  • Implication #3: Multicultural Curriculum: An Accurate Account—A balance and true representation of contributions made by populations in America’s development

These strategies are targeted to address four basic concepts necessary to eliminate school segregation: promote equality in treatment, equity in resources, equal opportunity, and cultural democracy (Valverde, 2004). When researching responses to diversify and provide equal and quality education, author Ezella McPherson states the following points in “Moving from Separate, to Equal, to Equitable Schooling: Revisiting School Desegregation Policies,” (2011)

“…to diversify schools, housing policies need to be implemented to end racial discriminatory housing practices while integrating neighborhoods so that children and parents can interact with people from different racial backgrounds. By doing so, parents may be able to build racial tolerance and acceptance of their neighbors, which will place them in a better position to feel more comfortable to send their children to racially integrated schools. Besides neighborhoods, schools may need to be reformed to provide equitable learning environments for students regardless of their racial and/or socioeconomic class background. By equitable learning environment, I am suggesting that schools provide students with the opportunity to learn through providing an equitable education to students through quality teaching, school resources (e.g., books, materials), in-school tutoring for students with special needs or who have challenges in a particular subject. More importantly, in building racial tolerance and acceptance for people from different racial backgrounds, community members (e.g., school teachers, parents, local community members) should consider working together to provide a quality education for students” (2011, p.479).

Reflecting on my personal story, my parents migrated to the United States of America in the 1970s, looking for a better opportunity in three aspects of life, political, social and economic. They left their family and possessions behind and started in this country with a clear motivation, “to provide a better opportunity and lifestyle for their children and extended family.” I grew up in a household with strong cultural ties to the Indian culture and the Christian faith. My siblings and I were consistently reminded of the struggles that my parents and their ancestors endured and faced as they lived in India. They told us their hardships if it dealt with socioeconomic status, race, equality, or gender relationship, that they dealt with as they started and continued to live in America. The challenge of living in a traditional household that focuses on culture and religion is when you are living in a different culture besides the one that you are growing up in. Living in a household and trying to find an even balance between the American culture and Indian culture was challenging because there were ideology differences in culture, achievement, motivation, and gender. As I entered the elementary school, I thought that all children are equal and viewed the same; however, I soon came to realize how different I was even though I was born in the United States of America. I saw that I was not a part of the same culture, in fact, I was a minority looking into a culture that I had no idea about.

At an early age, I found myself making decisions and understanding perspectives that differed from mine; I look at the content in multiple ways because I was exposed to understanding how the world can be complicated, unjust, and unfair. My parents instilled in us that one should not allow being conquered by the injustices or unfairness that we might receive, one should look at these trials and tribulations and overcome them by continuing to follow their aspirations, advancing to become educated and eventually empowering oneself and making the change he or she wishes to see.

Looking at my parents starting point as they entered this country in the 1970s and comparing to where we are as a family now is remarkable, considering the strides that they made with the limited resources and support at their disposal. My parents eventually moved out to the suburbs on Long Island. They were adamant about providing us a quality education, and as a result, they uprooted their family to a new location where they were the only minority family. I can remember racial tension stories, an unfair treatment that my parents endured as they lived in the United States. I remember entering school and seeing racial injustices amongst my siblings and I. However, the one thing I remembered is that my parents consistently demonstrated that the culture that they have raised us was a culture that entailed language, knowledge, history, morals, and values that we should be proud of. We were taught not to back down and continue to strive. My parents equipped us with ideas that when we face injustices, we must be prepared with words, education, knowledge, and understanding and only then can we achieve equality.

In a traditional Indian household males and females are distinctly different. Being the youngest and a female, my gender defined my family responsibilities, social behavior, and thought process. For instance, I was expected to learn how to cook and clean, prepare meals and serve, be submissive and inferior to the males. However, living in a western culture and growing up in a traditional Indian household, my environment did not allow me to accept and practice any of these expectations. In fact, with the combination of the American and Indian culture intertwined, the two cultures combined empowered me to become a stronger individual that was aspiring to be a change agent for future minority youths, adults and especially minority females.

As an educator, administrator, and a doctoral student, I can emphatically say and agree with Ezella McPherson; it is time for schools to support children that come from diverse background, it is imperative that we as leaders provide professional development to our teachers who are in the frontline to help children who may differ from the majority, it is time for local and state officials to make culturally responsiveness a priority and not a checklist of things to get done within the educational system. The racial segregation and intolerance I felt in my life was strikingly turning points in my life, however the people that I came across, my family who was my foundation, and my loved ones who continue to support me were all factors why I keep staying on a path where I can be a change agent for schools to become culturally responsive.

References:

Hughes, L., Collier, B., Linn, L., & Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers (Firm),. (2012). I, Too. New York: Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers.

Kozol, Jonathan (1991). Savage Inequalities: children in America’s schools. New York: Broadway Paperbacks.

McPherson, Ezella (2011). Moving from Separate, to Equal, to Equitable Schooling: Revisiting School Desegregation Policies. Education and Urban Society, 46(3), 465-483.

Valverde, Leonard (2004). Equal Educational Opportunity Since Brown: four major developments. Education and Urban Society, 36(3), 368-378.