tv The Presidency George Washington Native Americans CSPAN March 25, 2018 7:58pm-9:17pm EDT
-- pat has made reference to cultural wars. we still see those today. i also think that there is a linkage between 1964 and airy -- barry goldwater and his brand of populism was brought to the reagan years and nixon to some extent with movement conservatism. all the way up to donald trump. i think we see the seeds of the democratic left and republican right and democratic populism and republican populism to this day. pat: i think that is true. goldwater laid this foundation of a powerful conservative movement that captured the party but not the country. nixon picks up that movement and brought the republican party together and picked up the two pieces of the democratic party, the northern catholics and southern protestants. and created a new majority that won the republicans five out of six presidential elections after 1964, which was astounding considering the defeat.
in the democratic party, g -- gene mccarthy, bobby kennedy, mcgovern, they would capture the party and nominate mcgovern in 1972. i think what you have subsequent to 1968, that year we really crossed the continental divide, and we have never been able to get back over it, i think, and it is because it involves more than politics. it involves fundamental beliefs about rights, wrong, good, evil, and justice and injustice. there is very little upon which you find in americans -- that americans really agree on these days. host: for your insight, perspective men stories, barbara perry, and pat buchanan, thank you. >> we continue our series 1968 x
sunday, with a look at civil rights and race relations. martin luther king jr.'s campaign, assassination in memphis, black power and the kerner commission. that is april 1, live at 8:30 a.m. eastern. next, we hear about george washington and his relationship with native americans from colin calloway, . the author explains that washington first interacted with native american tribes during the seven years war, and was the first to recognize their importance to the survival and growth of the young nation. george washington university hosted this event. it is 90 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> good evening. welcome to the seventh annual george washington lecture.
my name is denver brunsman. i have the privilege of teaching a class at mount vernon. i would like to welcome the president and his wife, their first time to celebrating george washington's birthday with us. thank you so much. one thing historians love to study is how certain policies and programs either. over into the new administrations, or don't. this -- werted started this traditions seven years ago, but having an intellectual component as the centerpiece of our celebration for george washington's birthday. we have looked at the positives, the negatives, and everything in between. for anld be this way enlightened figure who championed the free intellectual ideas that serve as the
foundation of this university that probably bears its name. on the 286th anniversary of inhington's birthday, we are for a treat. we welcome a distinguished scholar and historian, who will discuss washington and american indians. willwing his remarks, he take questions from the audience, so get them ready. lecture,ly following a there will be a reception at the back of the ballroom, and he "ll sign copies of his book, the victory with no name." to welcomey pleasure the 17th president of george washington university. thank you. delighted to join you on
this evening to continue the university tradition of honoring george washington with a discussion of his life and legacy on his birthday. i hope there will be cake, later. anight's lecture is part of series of events that this year marks the 286 anniversary of george washington's birthday, and the one 97th university -- birthday of this university's founding. we are a few years shy of our own bicentennial. this gives us an important opportunity to reflect on the vision our namesake had to establish a university in our nations capital, compelling students to lead and advance the cause of the young american republic. that vision has become our mission. we are a community of learning that serves the public good. we have a distinct opportunity to delve more deeply into the nuances of washington's life.
-- and from and discuss have a discussion with someone who has studied and researched extensively his relationship with native americans. jr. 1940 john kimball three professor of history and native american studies at dartmouth. he received his phd in 1978. after moving to the united states, he taught high school in vermont and served for two years as an associate director for the history of american indians at newberry library in chicago, and taught for seven years at the university of wyoming. a business --d as visiting professor at dartmouth in 1990. , whichtors latest book you will receive a special first thek at tonight, is titled "
indian world of george washington." before turning over the program i would also like to recognize nts are indigenous to a native american rights group that has actively supported the selection. thank you for your involvement. it is my pleasure to invite to the stage our speaker for this year's seventh annual george washington lecture, dr. colin gordon calloway. dr. calloway: good evening. thank you all for coming. for the invitation to be here. i have to ask the wisdom of tos, to invite a british guy talk about native american history on george washington's .irthday but i have tremendous respect for your first president.
my goal in writing this book and michael here is to use george washington as a vehicle. me have been working for years and years to do something quite simple, to get into americanns history. we have not always been successful. is really to take iconic figures in american history and demonstrate how important native americans were in shaping the history that produced the american nation. by doing that, we demonstrate to restore native americans to their proper place in our history. tonight and spending a few minutes listening to me, you save yourself from having to
read 600 pages when this comes out in a month or so. that was probably a good decision. i should take this opportunity, in addition to thinking dr. br unsman and the university, i want to thank david silverman from the history department. when you write a book and you get reviews, you normally get something like, this is great, do you really want to say this? but i got a line by line reading. the acknowledgments of the book, the author will thank all the people who helped. says, any, it -- areng errors aren't
entirely david silverman's. 1793, the fourth of february, a monday, george washington had dinner in philadelphia with a delegation of native americans. one week later, he had dinner in philadelphia with another delegation of native americans. last week of november, 1796, he had dinner with native americans, different groups of native american delegates, for days. on one occasion, a delegation of oative americans from the ohi9 country were in town at the same time as a delegation of choctaws. and
the bump into each other at a bumped into each other at a museum. there could have been violence. expect indian people in the 1790's in philadelphia. they were not an uncommon occurrence. george washington was hanging out with indian people. nativet about every american leader of the time. --met every american native native american leader of the time. when he met with them, he exchanged belts with them, drank with them. are not images of george washington we have in our collective memory, which is of a inff and formal individual, a black velvet suit.
he was doing this because knew whatn new -- history is forgotten, and that native americans were fundamentally important to the history of the republic. they were fundamentally important to its survival. time when the american nation was still precarious, indian power mattered. george washington understood that indian power and alliances were a central 2 -- were nation, as they were surrounded by the british and the north and the spanish and the south and the indigenous power to the west. washington understood, knew about the west, more than others.
fundamental to george washington's life was an interest in, obsession with, western lands. western lands is how they are usually described. i would substitute western land for indian land. washingtonat george were interested in acquiring for his nation were indian homelands. they were a huge part of american history, particularly .arly american history there was a transfer of native american homelands to native american real estate. there is a map in the library of congress showing george washington's western landholdings, about the time of his death. acres.,000 land-rich.
he was one of the wealthiest man -- man in america at the time of his death. his will has an extensive listing of these lands and their situation. he began his career as a surveyor. profession important in early virginia. looked at western and indian lands with a good eye. he was interested in these lands as a way of elevating his own status. he looked at these lands for the future and the prosperity of the nation, just as he looked at as the future and prosperity for himself. this map in the middle of the 18th century can give us an idea
of why virginia was so much at the forefront of expansion into indian country onto western land. you can see here, not a particularly imaginative way of dividing up the continent. colonies had western land that often went all the way to the pacific. nobody really knew where it was. virginia gives it a huge swath of territory, into the ohio country, deep into indian country, so that organizations like the virginia company of look at this as a way to bolster the tobacco industry, to make future investments, and that will be important in washington's life and in the way
american history unfolds. area is not as people would phrase it at the time, "vacant land." it was contested land. particularly in the middle of the 18th century, contested between britain and france. this map is. this map is pure fantasy. it shows britain and spanish claims to the continent, but ignores the hundreds of nations whose names it should be on the map -- whose names should be on the map and control reality and determine the outcome of what will happen. when virginia looks west across the mountains to the ohio
country, it is in competition with philadelphia. it is also in competition with french colonial aspirations and indian people who are populating bacteria -- that area, some of they havendigenous, relocated from pressures in the east. place where they've felt they need to make a stand at the ohio river. homeland,digenous increasingly looking like an indigenous refugee community. areae context of that washington plays a prominent part,. episode of
washington's life's biographers pay attention to, one of the few areas where indian people figure into washington's biography. this is the first portrait of george washington, by the time he is in his 40's. dresses for it in the uniform he would've worn as an officer in the colonial militia. when theto prominence himrnor in virginia sends on a diplomatic mission into the ohio country, with a letter to the french, building forts in to solidify their hold area, because the ohio river connect their settlements and colonies on the st. lawrence to the mississippi and down to the mountains of the mississippi. the letterdelivers to ask the french politely if
they wouldn't mind withdrawing. no.french politely respond, washington comes home, but part of what he is doing is gathering information to produce a map. he produces at short notice a , and heof that mission is asked to give a write up for the next day. anpulled an all miter -- all-nighter. them to the attention of colonial authorities, two people in britain, at a young age -- that brings them to the attention of colonial authorities, two people in britain, at a young age. he is only 21. he is going into indian country and knows nothing about what that means, how to do business in indian country. language,learn the
whencols, rituals, how and to speak to people who are dressed differently. he has to learn what is the right way to approach. you don't necessarily take the shortest route from a to b. mission, youic need to take a piece road -- peace road. washington's time in the country comes into contact with a , this is a portrait by a modern artist. it reflects what he would have looked like. title, iting was a
, sentnd of an ambassador by the confederacy to oversee iroquis interests in the ohio country, and show show the interests. shoshone interests, and looking after his own interests. he knew a thing or two. he was at a college warrior. -- he was an accomplished warrior. he was probably in his 50's at the time. his biographers say as of washington is calling the shots in this relationship. but if you've read the record, you do not get that impression.
washington's mission, into gton's first foray ae ohio country, comes with command of militia to defeat the french, which is a disaster, and resulted in the murder of a french ensign. it is described as if washington is orchestrating these events and is given credit for the skirmish that started the war that made america. believe thescholars person who really orchestrated the half-king. he had boasted to the french he would drive them off the land. he had to the indian peoples of the ohio country behind him -- had the indian peoples of the ohio country behind him. this didn't happen.
i assumed this was primarily to bolster his declining influence. skirmish,rse of the in which virginians squared wtih french, george washington, who is usually pretty meticulous about military engagements, describes this. but according to other accounts we have, french officers were documentsnd there are of the one -- is similar to the one washington had carried, asking the english to withdraw. the half-king said, "thou art not dead yet, my father." tomahawk into his
head and washed his hands with his brains. he is speaking of the ritual language, addressing a young french officer as father. this alliance is not yet severed. thes ritually severing alliance with the french. george washington is out of his element. he is later surrounded and forced to surrender to a french force, which in terms of surrender includes an admission that he was responsible for the assassination, the murder of a french officer. a huge propaganda boost to the french.
the english and the british dispatched the largest army to north america. the goal was to seize the french ohio, which is actually beside of present-day pittsburgh today. this is within grasping distance of indian allies. when that happens, the british troops trying -- respond as if they are trained -- respond as they're trained. british ranks are slaughtered.
washington was part of that washington was part of that expedition. there have been lots of accounts and pictures of washington, and much of the myth and mythology -- many soldiers were killed and wounded, but not washington. there were accounts from people there, which said, we try to kill him, but we couldn't. shots and arrows missed their mark. this was seen as an indication of future greatness, which is what biographers described. if indian people did think that, it is probably not that much different than how washington described it. he attributed it to providence.
the british colony is destroyed by a multi-tribal indian army. it is not french troops, the forts they built in the west. those sports are only viable -- viable if the indians who live around them defend them. the frenchdefeating in ohio country is not so much to engage them in battle. away fromin indians french alliances, to neutralize them. washington is involved in the next expedition, which succeeds in capturing the force in the ohio. this is assisted by the scottish expedition of john forebes.
jobington wants to get the done. he is a young man. he says, we are not moving fast enough. the general is incompetent. he is using a new road. washington is pushing his interests. slowly.vancing washington's radar, he is conducting complicated indian diplomacy, which results in the treaty of pennsylvania, in which 500 indian people from 13 different tribes show up. thatritish promise them once the french are defeated, which had be safe,
been refused previously, because british people -- because indian people are not positive the front or the british. they are fighting for their own reasons, to preserve their own homelands. the treaty secures them those objectives. people in ohio, they have won their war. they drop out of the war, which forbes the green light to advance and the french realize, this is the end of the game. fortst indian defenders, are not indefensible.
this is the end of the french and indian war. my thing is not moving here. ofleads to another series events that shape's washington's life, and shape the direction of american history. indians are right at the center of it. it would not have happened at the way that it did without native people. 1763 represents a shift in north america. france abandons its north american claims. it sends people to get that
region out of the hands of the british. the british now have a huge north american empire. ,hey are virtually bankrupt after fighting what was essentially the first world war. they are not quite sure what to do with this emperor. don't do is keep their word. they don't do is keep their word. they occupy forts that has been abandoned by french troops. that, same time they do the british high command says, givingsave money by not gifts to the indians. we do not need the and alliances anymore to fight the french. why would begin them gets and supply them with guns and give them favorable trade?
we will stop. giftgiving in native american diplomacy is not about giftgiving. it is about the feeling of diplomacy, allies give and receive gifts. giving gifts demonstrates you speak from the heart, friends and allies give and receive gifts, enemies don't. soldiers to occupy indian territory at the same time as british officers are giving indian guests, that is 10 -- tantamount to a declaration of, if not war, certainly hostility. chief, thed by a war indian tribes at the great lakes and ohio country do what the american colonists do 12 years later. a war of rebellion
against the biggest empire in the world. and they almost win. they destroyed most of the british forced west of the allegheny. they push british settlers across the mountains. britishtest -- the bring this to a close through a series of negotiations with indian people. the brits now decide that they have to leave an army in north america. , like british people, are suspicious of a standing army. at that time, it would surely be used to impressed citizens. -- oppressed citizens. that is an expensive proposition. britain is broke.
british taxpayers are taxed to the hilt. how will we pay for this? it is there to defend american subjects, just as the war was fought to protect american interests. isn't it only fair that the american colonists should pay taxes? so that was the decision, and we know how well that went. the other piece of it that doesn't get as much attention is the response to pontiacs war. in october 1763, the british and kingt issues, george the third signs, what is called the royal proclamation. it recognizes that as long as white settlers trespass and encroach on indian country without restraint, there will be warfare and bloodshed, and the front will be uncontrolled. proclamation and a
line down the appalachian mountains. said east of this british settlement, west of it between the appalachians and mississippi, this is reddish territory, but -- british area.ory, but indian the only way indian land can be bought and sold there is through the crowds official representative meeting in open ofnsel with the delegates the tribes and having a formal transfer of land. the idea is not that this will be a permanent line. it's idea is that it will move over time, be regulated, systematic, and avoid bloodshed. this is just, of course, an imaginary line. wallwere going to build a
and get the indians to pay for it. [laughter] let it doesn't do is have much -- n effect on settlers, they can squat on any land, they will just go back. the people it really affects are the people who have got investment in indian lands. people who have been invested, forulated and buying lands years, in anticipation of the wonderful day when the french will be defeated and british settlers can swarm over the mountains and be looking for land to rent and buy. people like thomas jefferson, benjamin franklin, george washington, most of the founding generation.
not only is there a huge cloud over their title, but the crown is saying, we are the only one who commands the land. this is a huge step in the alienation of george washington. we have seen this plenty of times. i was traveling to mount vernon a couple years ago and i stopped for lunch. the waitress asked me what i was doing and where i was going. i told her. she said "joke for you. what is the historical significance of roe v. wade?" it was the dilemma that george washington crossed facing the delaware. it wasn't the conversation i expected to have. [laughter] you see this everywhere. what it does is show george washington as we think of him, facing east. informed events in the revolution, in his life,
,appening facing the east crossing the delaware. but in the revolution and the rest of his life, he's also facing west. in my book, i use this idea that if george washington is a god, the god he most resembles is the roman god janus, the two-faced god. like january, facing future and past. not in the pejorative way we might use it now, but looking to the past and looking to the future. i think that is what he is doing. the revolution is the war for american independence, but it is also war for indian land and who gets it. for indian people, the revolution is a war for their land, but it's also a war for their independence against the americans, because the british have at least showed some inclination to try and protect and preserve american -- in the
lands. the americans have showed opposite inclinations. ais is down the road, sculpture in the museum of the american indian shelling george georgeton -- showing washington with two oneida people. in their history, and the crisis time of the resolution that revolution, went to valley forge and fed american troops. it did not do them much good at the end of the revolution. they still suffered horrendously, land losses. but most of washington's attention was focused on the other members of the iroquois confederacy, the six nations. senecas,oneida, stretching across upstate new york and east pennsylvania.
theoneida's sided with americans. most of the others fought against the americans. this man, shown here, had devastating raids on the frontier in new york and pennsylvania. in response to that, george washington dispatched an expedition under general john sullivan. was george washington's expedition. he planned it, he conceived of it, he sent out questionnaires, he micromanaged this. it earned him, from the iroquois, the name "town destroyer." sullivan's expedition marched through, destroyed 40 iraq white -- 40 at least 160
at least 160s, bushels of corn. it was an assault into indian country. it was usually around early october where you could destroy the cornfields late enough in the season so that it was too late to plant another crop, rendering indian people hungry for the winter, destroying their homes, and has a much greater impact than trying to find indian warriors. in the 19th century, the same strategy worked on the great arens, accept their people defending buffalo herds rather than corn. certainly aion is attacks.to iroquois
but there is something else going on here. in the ohiohe west, country, continues long after cornwell -- cornwallis surrendered at yorktown 1781. 1782, ohio valley, indians are inflicting defeats on american forces and they think they are winning. they are winning until the riverh sell them down the in the paris account. you might say, why is the war going on in the west when the revolution is won in the east? becausethe answer is this is a war about getting that .and towards the end of the war, some european powers had contemplated negotiating a peace whereby americans could get independence, and then the territory would be decided by,
you keep what you are holding at the time. in british quebec after 1774, they extended the province of quebec down to the ohio river. contrary to what our textbook maps tell us where you get that lockstep expansion of america across the continent, and where the united states gets everything in 1783 stretching to the mississippi, that was not a conclusion. britain could have kept everything west of the appellations. what kind of -- h ian's -- appalachians. part of this is about getting boots on the ground so that when it comes to negotiating peace settlements, america has claims to this land. and after the revolution, this is where the direction of
american expansion goes. those colonies that have had western land claims did not all give them up. in the south, they hold onto them. in the north, they gave them up. the extent of the new federal government has expanded onto the republic land, land north of the ohio. it becomes the northwest territory. 1787orthwest ordinance of outlines how this is going to work. surveyed,will be measured, bounded. it will escape the fate of written's american colonies. -- britain's american colonies. colonies belong to the mother country. and grew up and matured,
left home. that's ok, but what happens if wisconsin tries to pull that off? we are now populist, we can look after our own affairs, we don't need to be governed by philadelphia or washington. you have got to stop that. the way this does it is by making territorial status, unlike colonial status, temporary. they start out as a territory. when the population grows to a certain extent, you become a state. you petition to become a union, a state on the same level as everybody else. intos how most states come the union. again, the problem is the northwest territory is occupied by indian people, and the northwest ordinance, having laid out this plan, this blueprint of national expansion, also pledges that the united states will deal
fairly and honorably with indian exert theirwill not lands except in lawful wars by congress. there is a phrase. this is part of what washington wrestles with as president. as first president, he is concerned with precedent. and he, i think genuinely, in company with his secretary of -- interesting that indian affairs are in the war department in the beginning -- wrestle with how to do this. there is no question that the u.s. will expand westward and take indian land. it has no choice. the united states, in 1783, is , and isition for it
broke. it has no money. the only resource they have is western land. it has to be able to get western land sold to generate revenue to build the nation's coffers, the infrastructure, etc. but how do we do that fairly and honorably? peopleton and other spilled too much ink thinking about this agonizing offer for me to dismiss this as just hypocrisy, but they are wrestling with the same thing the northwest ordinance wrestles with and america wrestles with. how can you reconcile these two things that are actually in collision and contradiction? the best answer is, of course, did,at the brits date -- make treaties.
give them a fair price for the land. the first treaty negotiated by the u.s. after the constitution was signed is the treaty of new york in 1790, with the creek indians. the creeks would have none of it. an incident which ofermines how the advice consent clause in the constitution comes to be worked out in practice. the president is supposed to conduct treaties with the advice , with the senate. that never happens again. it's like they stumbled into a faculty meeting. washington will not give up, so he invites the creeks,
particularly a creek chief who was part scottish, to new york. a delegation of 20 or so creeks come to new york. the artist john trumbull sketches four or five of them. this is not alexander mcgillivray. is an attempt to do the right thing. they went to the creeks, the creeks give up some land, the land they give up is the same land they refused to give up, which seems odd when you read the treaty, but then when you read the articles of the treaty that were not made public, ,ecause mcgillivray was bribed given a brigadier general's commission and the american army to win him over from his
allegiance to the spanish. he was playing the americans against the spanish. mcgillivray went back and restored his land with the spanish. this is reaching out and all of olive branch is -- to achieve peace. the problem is, what do you do when they say thanks, but no thanks? which they often did. to that, washington's response to we have no choice but expatriate them. will be authorized by congress because the indians are recalcitrant, and have refused a reasonable piece.
territory where the indians have refused to give up their land, because they are fighting to hold the line of the ohio river, washington dispatch in 1790,my, the first which is turned back. the second one in 1791 is utterly and completely destroyed. i won't go into it in detail, because you are all going to read my book, reading it at midnight, and you will not be able to put it down. but the reason i wrote this is because there is no book about it. there are so many books on custer's last stand. there are movies about it. we all know about it, or we all think we know about it. but about this -- and custer lost 250 men, and it did not
hold american expansion for a minute. this battle, the northwestern indian confederacy -- we are used to thinking of early american history as a period of we are noton, but the only people confederating. washington dispatch is the only army that the united states has, and the indians destroy it. the country is left defenseless. canada,s are still in the spanish in the south, and the indian power is real. this is huge at the time. it launched the first congressional investigation, which produces the first concept of executive privilege. huddles with his cabinet. congress wants the documents and they want to follow the money to alexander hamilton. they were setting precedent.
they say, we have to give him the documents, but the president should have the right to hold back any documents that he deems detrimental to the public interest. here we are. it changes the way in which -- americaorganized has organized and funded armies. if we are going to be a serious nation, we need a national army. we can't rely on militia. this method indian victory changes left of things in american history, and hardly any attention is being paid to it. part of nation building is what you choose to remember and forget about your history, it gets forgotten. the person later, usually accredited with masterminding that victory, marching for the miamis, he's one of several others.
this is a sketch of a portrait that was destroyed in the war of 1812 when the british burned washington. sorry about that. three years later though, the , it isrican army reversed. while that is going on, washington is conducting diplomacy with people like the seneca chief. he is coming to philadelphia all the time. he cannot have the iroquois confederacy joining the northwest confederacy. neutral.to keep them is some pretty hectic, frantic diplomacy. so if you believe george washington is the greatest president ever, this is another reason to believe it.
he had a lot on his plate in the first administration. not only all the things the textbooks talk about, he has this ever present threat of indian power and how to negotiate with indian people. he also articulates another dimension to american indian policy. offer to buy their land or destroy them? is that the best we can do? there is a third option. we can assimilate indian people. we can bring indian people into this new nation. what place will indian people occupied in the new united states? this is a question that was there at the revolution, and it was there up until 1830 when congress passes the indian removal act, which basically says there will be no place for indian people. washington did not subscribe to that. that then hoped
dispossession of indian lands could happen naturally, and blood loosely -- bloodlessly, as american hunters made the land less valuable. but then what? otherston and knox and lead the only opportunity for indians was for them to live like americans, to become civilized. civilization, which in the 1790's meant they had to become farmers. this is a little odd, because indian people throughout the eastern woodlands had been farming for hundreds of years. somebody had been doing all those cornfields and orchards that sullivan's expedition destroyed.
indian women had been doing that. society, asd imagined at this time, women have more domestic pursuits in the home, and men must become farmers. washington holds out a plan of civilization as a way for indian people to adjust and survive in this new world that is being created. too, becomes a permanent component, if you like, of american indian policy. it is inscribed on the piece of peace medal. it shows george washington peace withinece -- indian person. washington has laid down his sword.
that is the path and the future for indian people. saying he iseneca, willing to try this new path. thethe iroquois people, relationship they build with washington after the revolution ne of nation to nation sovereignty. belt,symbolized in this which washington repeatedly commissioned for a particular 1794 when he was trying to keep the iroquois from joining the northwest confederacy. at that treaty, the u.s. and iroquois pledged eternal friendship. the united states actually returned some iroquois lambs -- lands.
this agreement was made. ,t shows the 13 original states even though by this time there were more of them. those are the larger figures linking arms and holding hands with two smaller figures, standing next to a house. 13t's happening is that the states, the confederation of states, by linking arms with the iroquois league. not with all six of them, because you don't need to. you link with the mohawks with the eastern door, and the seneca, who guard the western door.by doing that, you establish a proper relationship, because you do business with the leak by going through those doors. you don't go straight to the middle. this is about the iroquois belt the this is a
iroquois people still display. to them, it symbolizes the actual relationship with the u.s. we are a nation in alliance. i teach a seminar in indian treaties. several years ago, i had a young seneca woman wanting to do a research project on treaties. blouse --treaty clock blouse. still have it on their own passports. declared war on germany and japan independently. where does this leave us with george washington? it would be easy for me to stand
destroyed.y he used the term extrapate. allhe did not use that for indian people, only for those who refused his offer. fails -- and he does fail -- to reconcile those conflicting agendas, to secure justice for indian people, that is because america fails. what is the answer? given the historical realities, how are things going to work out? i end with this picture of another scotsman, in many ways, john ross, chief of the charities at the time of the trail of tears.
cherokee,7/8 inherited through the maternal line interrupted, so 100% share of. talking about washington, john ross talked about him in tones of reverence. and the cherokee is adapted and adjusted. and they did everything they were supposed to do. -- washington is no longer president when john ross is talking about this. introjection is president.
an indian country without a , and it ism congress the proclamation of 1763 over again. this has been held out to indian people as a new era of government to secure their .uture with the government of washington wanted to do for indian countries played out very differently. that is not a washington dilemma only. that is an american dilemma. let me leave it right there. thank you. [applause] we can take a seat. thank you for that terrific lecture. now it is your turn.
we have a chance for questions. we ask that you come to the microphone and stand up. anything you want to know about george washington? ahead and to stand up and talk into the microphone. -- stand up and talk into the microphone. you mentionedr: that his death, washington owned all of the western lands. talk about the disposition of martha at his estate or the adoption of his children. one of thealloway: things that caused such a headache was trying to keep track of washington's lands. i found it so difficult to keep track of how he was getting this land. there was overlapping land
claims. , that came to realize was is perhaps not just to george washington. issue belonging to 19th-century america. they were swindling indian people out of land and swindling each other out of land. washington is promoting his own lands duringunty the french and indian war, knowingly dispossessing fellow officers. the short answer to your frankly because i kept a working grasp on it. eventually, i gave up.
somebody wrote in the 1930's, it was like overlapping shingles on a roof. that was how this land business was taking shape . >> the bill was kind of complicated. handwritten pages. any other questions? er: thank you for that fascinating talk. this was a talk for a popular audience. i am wondering if you can pause for a moment and talk about how you have found and what you were arguing into the larger histori ographical field. and why, given the importance of this story, have historians not managed to explore it more to date?
i thinkn calloway: there are a couple of ways of looking at this. project,embark on this i've read a lot of george washington biography. project,ed on this i've read a lot of george washington biography. indian people tend to get mentioned in washington's life, washington is displaying those traits of leadership that would make him a great president in the ohio valley. this story me was that is so essential to american history, not just in a popular way, but this was kind of
missing a beat. this is what all the people in indian history have been doing for years, challenging the historiography of america, in which american indians are absent from the story. my particular take on all of this is that not only is this offensive to native american it distorts american history. there are manye instances and many pivotal moments in american history that don't happen the way they happen unless you have indian people. you can't have a french and -- but this is a war
be now recognize as hugely influential. now recognize as hugely influential. question, about how people have ignored this for so long, i think one answer is that historians have not had the of those wonderful people who had so long been working on the george washington papers. this is a project at the university of virginia, online. don't think that i could have looked at it in the way i did without that. you look at those papers and still believe that washington withot deeply concerned
and that native americans were not hugely involved in the republic. five-sixths of the federal budget in washington's first administration goes to fighting indians. affairs in washington's cabinet meetings are discussed more than any other topic. missedld people have that? haveve all done this, i done this. the archives are doing one project. you go many years later and you see something amazing.
if historians are not looking , given the prevailing way in which we think that theyhistory, really don't matter. if you are going with looking for native americans, you find them everywhere. both individually, and in washington's thinking and writing. >> other questions? the moderators might ask a question. talk about how george washington evolved so that by the time he is president he is putting in place the policy be british were trying in the early 1760's -- british were trying in the
early 1760's. howuch has been made about british americans and african -americans were viewed differently. did you see any change with washington? dr. colin calloway: yes. i saw more in washington of what i presumed was thomas jefferson. it was thomas jefferson that set jefferson is taking notes in the cabinet meetings during these conversations. one of the great distinctions between them, you have a , there wasn jackson
an emerging philosophy with him, matter thet doesn't cherokee have made all the adjustments. it's leadership presented themselves as a modernized nation. we have done all of these things with our own printing press. in that sense, the racial question is impenetrable. jefferson --ox knocks jeffersons enlightenment thinking. they are inferior because of environment and experience. what we tell ourselves is at a different time and age. up withraised them
education and civilization so people can emerge and develop. i don't have a lot of time for washington as a young man. i see a young man, someone who puts his ego over everyone else. i am not the only one. washington grew. when the maturation happens, i have not been able to pinpoint it. is it the revolution?
is it when washington is tasked with defending the virginia frontier? it, andan't do realizes that people are being killed? i am not sure where it happened, but the washington who had been badgering and thinking as a virginian is now thinking as the president of a nation. you can definitely see that evolving. dr. brunsman: terrific. i think this brings us to a close. one more question? i would ask the there seems to be so
little consideration given to ho deal with indian nations now, when you see what is going on with the headline situation and the negotiation, the fact that there is this disregard for the budget. there is this painting of andrew jackson in the white house. is anyone connecting history and government at this point with the sort of responsibility? do you think there is a connection being made? absolutely.lloway: i teach in native american studies at dartmouth and i have native american students in every class. what we have are the issues at standing rock and the
infringement by the army. one of the things we look at, you start off with an attempt with treaties being made and broken into ignored. -- and ignored. rights are being trampled on. fast-forward, 2018. standing rock. not much has changed. i think that is one of the to grapple with as native american historians. it looks as if in balancing we have tohings, take