Analysis: Western Indian Confederacy Declare We Can Retreat No Farther
The analysis of the Western Indian Confederacy's declaration, "We Can Retreat No Farther," highlights the complex dynamics between American Indians and the newly formed United States in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Following the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which excluded any mention of Indigenous nations, the Confederacy confronted American representatives about grievances surrounding land rights, asserting that the U.S. had no legitimate claim to territories they inhabited. The Confederacy condemned the coercive tactics employed by U.S. delegates, who pressured tribes into ceding land through threats rather than genuine negotiation, and they articulated their refusal to recognize these treaties as valid.
This address reflects a significant shift in Indigenous political strategy, as it united multiple tribes in a combined effort to resist American encroachment, challenging the notion of U.S. authority. Their insistence on a return of land and the removal of white settlers demonstrates a profound cultural difference regarding concepts of ownership and peace. The Confederacy emphasized that their autonomy and rights to land were non-negotiable, framing their struggle as a defense of their way of life against invasive settlement. This historical moment illustrates the ongoing tensions and misunderstandings that characterized U.S.-Indian relations in the late 18th century, revealing the resilience of Indigenous nations in the face of colonial expansion.
Analysis: Western Indian Confederacy Declare We Can Retreat No Farther
Date: August 13, 1793
Author: Western Indian Confederacy
Genre: address; letter
Summary Overview
Although the American Revolution officially ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, fighting between the newly established United States and some of Great Britain’s former American Indian allies continued. Because the treaty did not mention Indians, they had to seek a separate peace with the Americans. The major area of contention involved land, as Indians did not recognize Britain’s right to cede native lands to the Americans in the treaty. The selection below is an address given to representatives of the United States by members of the Western Indian Confederacy. The document lists several grievances against the new nation, particularly calling attention to the coercive tactics used by American delegates to acquire new territory. As the document makes clear, war remained a viable possibility well into the 1790s; unlike before, however, Indians lacked diplomatic allies to help them shift the balance of power.
Document Analysis
This letter from the Western Confederacy to the United States Indian commissioners offers a window into US-Indian diplomatic exchanges and relations in the early 1790s, providing a fascinating look at how elements of Indian and Euro-American political negotiations were fused to accommodate both parties. In it, the Indians decry the treatment they received from American peacemakers at the conclusion of the war, asserting that US delegates coerced Indians into signing away land, and explain that cessions made to the United States failed to meet the necessary requirements laid out by the confederacy, thus making any sales or land grants void. The address also outlines important cultural differences between Indians and those of European descent. Eschewing money, the Indians indicate that in order to achieve peace, the settlers who encroached on Indian land must leave. Collectively, these themes reveal the efforts made by American Indians to achieve political autonomy from their white neighbors.
Diplomacy and Ceremony
The structure and ceremonial aspects present in the correspondence from the Western Confederacy deserve further attention. Because American Indians’ speeches likely required translation for US delegates, historians must use caution when interpreting documents. Often Indian words underwent one or two separate translations, thus blurring their actual words (and sometimes meaning). Translators likewise followed a formulaic protocol when deciding which words to preserve and which to excise from the final document; treaties with Indians were likely not copied verbatim. The translation process could obscure meaning, however, and lead to difficulties. The letter from the commissioners dated July 31, 1793, referred to in the document above, was translated from English into the Seneca language and then interpreted by a Wyandotte chief; indeed, the confederacy assures the American commissioners that the letter “has been interpreted to all the different nations.” Oftentimes, a group would repeat in their response what the other party wrote in order to confirm their understanding. This document reflects a process that crystallized as a result of cultural exchanges throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The structure and layout of the Indians’ response follow a methodical sequence that reflects a strict adherence to diplomatic protocol. They begin by confirming receipt of the previous correspondence given to them by the commissioners and end by dating the document and naming the place where it was written. They preface each statement by referring to the commissioners as brothers—a sentiment that conveys a desire for peace but also asserts their autonomy and standing as equals. In this role, they bluntly assess the United States’ past dealings with Indians and call particular attention to the belligerent tactics used by the Americans to extract favorable treaty terms. They refute US claims to land beyond the Ohio River and even offer advice to the commissioners on how to appease the white settlers. In doing so, they undermine the authority of the US Indian commissioners.
The ceremonial aspects of the treaty process likewise reflect the cultural transmission of diplomatic practices. While the letter does not capture the visual components of the gathering at the Miami rapids where it was written, it does offer some idea of the size and importance of the meeting. No fewer than sixteen Indian nations appeared at the gathering to contribute their opinions and confirm their willingness to continue waging war with the Americans if their demands were not met. This reflects a shift in Indian thought that took root in the eighteenth century, as the different tribes realized that the most effective route for keeping Americans out of their territory would be to unite rather than negotiate separately.
In addition, the peace ceremony continued the tradition of exchanging wampum belts, one of which was included by the US commissioners in their July 31 correspondence. Wampum beads, or shell beads, were used throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries during treaty negotiations. Highly treasured by American Indians as sacred objects, they added symbolic meaning to the ceremonies, and they also signified that the party distributing the belts had formulated their message after long periods of discussion and contemplation. Thus, it should not be surprising that the Western Confederacy waited thirteen days before penning a response to the US commissioners and explaining that they had “given it all the consideration in [their] power.”
Immediate Legacy of the American Revolution
The American Revolution had catastrophic consequences for American Indians, regardless of the side on which they fought. The imperial landscape that had defined relations between American colonists and Indians had ended abruptly with the end of the Seven Years’ War. Before 1763, Indians kept colonial ambitions of expansion in check by allying themselves with one imperial party or another; once the French were expelled from North America, Indians lost a powerful ally. When tensions mounted between the British Crown and the colonists, Indians could once again use diplomacy, this time with the British king, to keep land-thirsty colonists at bay. While it lasted, the relationship benefited both parties: Indians received royal recognition of their territories and Britain maintained profitable trade relations. The balance of power existing in the father-child relationship between the Crown and the Indians, however, became hotly contested at the close of the revolution. In their address to the commissioners, the Indians contend that the king had no power whatsoever to disburse their territory in the Treaty of Paris and that any land ceded to the Americans in the peace treaties following the war resulted from violent coercion on the part of the commissioners. By questioning the legality of those treaties, the confederacy refutes all US claims to land beyond the Ohio River and asserts its political autonomy.
A key component of the Indians’ claim to the land rests in their articulation of their relationship to King George III, whom they refer to as “our father.” Correspondence between allies often included some form of reference to kinship ties. Familial references underscored both the blood ties, including alliances made through intermarriage, and the power relationship. The term child denoted an inferior position in relation to the father, who commanded deference. The father-child relationship did not necessarily mean, however, that the possessions of the child were, by extension, property of the father, and the confederacy makes this clear in their response: “the King of England never did, nor ever had a right to give you our country, by the treaty of peace.” Nor did this relationship give George III the exclusive right to purchase their lands. The Indians maintain that they will not recognize any treaty made between white people concerning Indian affairs if it does not also have the blessing of Indians, thereby nullifying US attempts to monopolize the purchase and sale of Indian land. Moreover, they refuse to acknowledge any obligation to pay war reparations.
Just as forcefully, the Indians decry the bullying tactics used by American delegates during the Fort Stanwix and Fort McIntosh treaties. When James Duane became the head of the Committee on Indian Affairs, he dispensed with the traditional ceremonial processes that had defined Indian diplomacy for centuries and began to employ draconian measures. Threats of physical violence replaced gifts of wampum belts. Duane ultimately wanted to assert American hegemony over Indian affairs and subdue Indians to a peripheral position. Nearly a decade later, the Western Confederacy drew on these experiences in their address, questioning the sincerity of American desires for peace and explaining that previously, Indians “went to meet your commissioners to make peace, but, through fear, were obliged to sign any paper that was laid before them; and it has since appeared that deeds of cession were signed by them, instead of treaties of peace.” Moreover, they define American encroachments on their land as “invasions,” undergirding their position as “defending [their] just rights” to protect their property.
The letter chips away further at US claims to lands beyond the Ohio River, referencing a 1788 meeting with Northwest Territory governor Arthur St. Clair in which Indians not only refuted the land cessions made at Stanwix and McIntosh but also set forth a new requirement regarding the trading or purchasing of Indian land. Accordingly, the confederacy explains, the United States had no right to sell lands west of the Ohio River to American settlers.
By 1793, the nascent and economically unstable United States had to contend with the united confederacy, which explains the commissioners’ departure from Duane’s earlier methods of dealing with Indians and reintroduction of gift giving. Unlike in 1783, the confederacy successfully circumvented American military advances. After receiving acknowledgement of “[their] independence” from the Americans, the Western Confederacy had no desire to “surrender . . . [their] country.”
Methods for Peace
The Indians and the US commissioners brought different ideas of peace to the discussion at the Miami rapids. Americans promised monetary compensation and material goods in return for acquiescence, in the process underlining American disregard for understanding Indian culture. American Indian nations with societies structured around hunting promoted different social structures than their white neighbors, requiring large tracts of land for their sociopolitical structures to function effectively. By contrast, white males typically worked on farms, while white women cared for children and performed other domestic duties; Euro-Americans thus considered the hunting lifestyle of Indian males to be lethargic and grossly unfair to native women, based on the European tradition in which hunting remained a pastime of the elite. The response from the confederacy eschews offers of money, stipulating that the United States should redistribute those funds to the settlers currently residing on Indian lands. Peace, the letter explains, can only occur with the removal of white settlers from beyond the western border of the Ohio River.
The exchange of land for money did not register with Indians as an appropriate or desirable trade, as they functioned on relationships of reciprocity, trading in kind rather than through money. Chiefs, for instance, gained prestige and power through their ability to disperse goods among their people. The “large sum of money” promised by Americans, then, held little appeal or value to Indians; the land, on the other hand, fed and clothed Indian families. The July 31 letter offered to supply Indians with furs and other material goods annually. If the confederacy had agreed to this stipulation, they would have ceded their autonomy along with substantial amounts of land. Instead, they responded by saying that “no consideration whatever can induce us to sell the lands on which we get sustenance for our women and children.”
In their address, the Indians suggest a plan to remove white squatters from their land, putting forth a strategy that would redistribute the money offered to the confederacy to the settlers instead. Deducing that the settlers lack economic means, the confederacy proposes that such a monetary settlement will fix the situation and ensure peace. They also imply that the continued presence of whites on Indian land will circumvent any chance at peace: “Restore to us our country, and we shall be enemies no longer.” White incursions on Indian territory altered Indian patterns of life, made scarce their resources, and chipped away at their autonomy. As part of their argument, the confederacy explains, “We can retreat no farther, because the country behind hardly affords food for its present inhabitants; and we have therefore resolved to leave our bones in this small space to which we are now confined.”
Though brief in content, the letter from the Western Confederacy to the US commissioners reveals much about US-Indian relations in the late eighteenth century. The structure and form of the document reflects a return to previous diplomatic ceremonies that involved large gatherings, long periods of contemplation, and gift exchanges. The joining of various Indian nations to form a united confederacy shifted the balance of power between the United States and Indians. The newly formed United States had little economic and military power, and the early military successes of the Western Confederacy required the fledgling nation to deal with them as equals. Thus, when corresponding with one another, Indians and the US commissioners referred to one another as “brothers” rather than father or child. The military successes also helped Indians undermine US claims to territory west of the Ohio River. Claiming that the treaties conducted at Fort Stanwix and McIntosh resulted from threats, the Indians demand in the letter that the United States require its settlers to leave Indian territory. The disparate proposals for peace underscore each side’s misunderstanding of their stark cultural differences.
Bibliography
Calloway, Colin G. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.
---. New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. Print.
Nash, Gary B. “The Forgotten Experience: Indians, Blacks, and the American Revolution.” Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760–1791. Ed. Richard D. Brown. Lexington: Heath, 1992. 277–82. Print.
Richter, Daniel K. Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001. Print
---. Before the Revolution: America’s Ancient Pasts. Cambridge: Belknap P of Harvard UP, 2011. Print.