Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

were included in the discussions. Johnson’s efforts resulted in the Seneca joining

the other members of the Iroquois Confederacy in calling for the other native

groups to lay down their arms and make peace with the British. The Iroquois did

not act out of loyalty to the British, but rather felt that being allied to the British

would strengthen their claims to sovereignty over the Ohio Valley.

The support of General Thomas Gage and the backing of the Iroquois enabled

Sir William Johnson to host a peace conference at Fort Niagara in January 1764

that was attended by the leaders of most of the native groups that had participated

in Pontiac’s Rebellion. During the monthlong meeting, Johnson proved a gracious

host who fed his guests well and who plied them with an abundance of gifts. The

goodwill that was generated resulted in a number of native nations allying them-

selves with the British and pledging to ﬁght against their former native allies.

Although the sieges had been broken at Fort Pitt and at Fort Detroit and many of the

warriors, such as Pontiac, had retreated westward, that did not mean that the British

considered the war to be over. Two British armi es invaded the Ohio Valley during

the summer of 1764. Colonel John Bradstreet led a force that was nearly

2,000 men strong, including Iroqu ois warriors, from Fort N iagara. Colonel Henry

Bouquet launched his expedition from Fort Pitt. The Br itish assault towards their

home communities convinced those native leaders who had wanted to continue

ﬁghting the British that further resistance was futile, thus they too eventually came

to terms. Pontiac held out until he was forced to capitulate at Fort Oswego in 1766.

—John R. Burch Jr.

See also al l e ntries under Pue blo Revolt (1680); Pima Revolt (1751); Flight of th e

Nez Perce

(1877); Wounded Knee I (1890); Trail of Broken Treaties (1972); Wounded

Knee II (1973).

Further Reading

Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British

North America, 1754–1766 . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

Barr, Daniel P., ed. The Boundaries between Us: Natives and Newcomers along the Fron-

tiers of the Old Northwest Territory, 1750–1850. Kent, OH: Kent State University

Press, 2006.

Calloway, Colin. The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Cave, Alfred A. Prophets of the Great Spirit: Native American Revitalization Movements

in Eastern North America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

Dixon, David. Never Come to Peace Again: Pontiac’s Uprising and the Fate of the British

Empire in North America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005.

Dowd, Gregory Evans. A Spirited Resistance: The North American Struggle for Unity,

1745–1815. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

114 Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763)

Dowd, Gregory Evans. War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations & the British

Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Hinderaker, Eric, and Peter C. Mancall. At the Edge of Empire: The Backcountry in British

North America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

McConnell, Michael N. A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples,

1724–1774. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 199 2.

Middleton, Richar d. Pontiac’s War: Its Causes, Course and Consequences. New York:

Routledge, 2007.

Nelson, Larry L. A Man of Distinction among Them: Alexander McKee and British-Indian

Affairs Along the Ohio Country Frontier, 1754–1799. Kent, OH: Kent State University

Press, 1999.

O’Toole, Fintan. White Savage: William Johnson and the Invention of America. New York:

Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

Ward, Matthew C. Breaking the Backcountry: The Seven Years’ War in Virginia and

Pennsylvania, 1754–1765. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003.

White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indian, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes

Region, 1650–1815. New York: Cambrid ge University Press, 1991.

Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763) 115

Amherst, Jeffrey (1717–1797)

Amherst, born on January 29, 1717, began his military career in 1731 u nder the

command of Sir John Ligonier. He served u nde r Ligonier during the War of the

Austrian Succession as an aide-de-camp. During the French and Indian War,

Ligonier used his inﬂuence with William Pitt the elder to advance his prote

’s

military career. Amherst was a relatively obscure ofﬁcer who was tapped by Pitt

to lead an expedition against the French fort of Louisbourg, which was located

on Cape Br eton Island. The expedition was launched in March 1758, and the

French surrendered the fort on July 26, 1758. Amherst’s victory resulted in his

appointment as commander in chief of Great Britain’s forces in North America

by late 1758. His greatest military accomplishment was his three-pronged invasion

of Canada that was launched in August 1760. The campaign proved so successful

that Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil de Cavagnial surrendered New France on

September 8, 1760.

Following the conclus ion of t he French and Indian War, Amherst turned his

attention to Native American affairs. He generally detested Native Americans

and saw little value in them as allies. Thus, he stopped the customary practice of

giving gifts to tribes that were friendly to the British in 1761. This stance deprived

Native American groups of the gunpowder they required for both hunting and war-

fare. Amherst also actively began encouraging settlers to build communities

around British forts. The discontent among native peoples that resulted from

Amherst’s actions erupted into open warfare in 1763 when British forts throughout

the Great Lakes region and the Ohio River Valley w ere attacked by a numbe r of

different native groups in a conﬂict that has become popularly known as Pontiac’s

Rebellion.

During the initial stages of the conﬂic t, Amherst appeared to have underesti-

mated the military capabilities of his opponents. Once he realized his error, he

ordered British troops to re inforce the posts that d id not f all during the ini tial

assaults. His reputation has been besmirched by an act that may not have been

committed under his orders. Amherst is credi ted with having ordered the British

garrison at Fort Pitt to intentionally distribute as gifts to the Native Americans

besieging the fort blankets that were contaminated with smallpox, in the hopes that

an epidemic would eradicate their numbers. General dissatisfaction with

Amherst’s handling of relations with Native American groups and the subsequent

war led British ofﬁcials to relieve him of command and recall him to England prior

to the conclusion of Pontiac’s Rebellion.

Amherst’s military career prospered upon his return to E ngland. His militar y

honors included being named Baron Amherst of Holmesdale in 1776. He received

117

a second peerage in 1782 as ﬁrst Baron Amherst of Montreal. He was twice named

commander in chief, ﬁrst in 1778 and again in 1793. He died on August 3, 1797.

—John R. Burch Jr.

Further Reading

Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British

North America, 1754–1766 . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

Dowd, Gregory Evans. War under H eaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations & the British

Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Johnston, A. J. B . E ndgame 1758: The P romise, the Glory, and the Despair of Louis-

bourg’s Last Decade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2007.

Nester, William R. “Haughty Conquerors”: Amher st a nd the Great Indian Uprising of

1763. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000.

French and Indian War (1754–1763)

The French and I ndian War was the North American theater of the Seven Yea rs’

War between Great Britain and France , which wa s fought from 17 54 to 176 3.

The conﬂict was ignited in 1754 when Virginia governor Robert Dinwiddie

ordered Lieutenant Colonel George Washington to construct a fort at the conﬂu-

ence of the Ohio River. Washington’s expedition ended with his surrend er at Fort

Necessity. Sporadic warfare then followed in 1755, which included the displace-

ment of the Acadians in Nova Scotia by the British and the French defeat of Gen-

eral Edward Braddock’s expedition against Fort Duquesne.

The escalation of hostilities led the European powers to formally declare war on

May 17, 1756. France selected the marquis de Montcalm to command its forces in

North America. British authorities named Lord Loudoun to serve as its com-

mander in chief. Loudon proved ineffectual in that capacity against the French

and their Native American allies and was replaced in late 1758 by General Jeffrey

Amherst.

Great Britain’s military fortunes had begun to change in 1758 with the success

of Am herst’s capture of Louisbourg and the successes of General John Forbes in

the Ohio country. The British achieved a decisive victory on September 13,

1759, when they took the city of Quebec. Both the marquis de Montcalm and Brit-

ish general James Wolfe were killed during the battle. Amherst completed the con-

quest of Canada the following year with a three-pronged invasion that culminated

with the capture of Montreal on September 7, 1760. Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil

de Cavagnial surrendered New France the following day.

118 Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763)

Although the surrender of New France resulted in the general end of warfare

within North America between France and Great Britain, it did not end warfare

between G reat Britain and France’s former Native American allies. The sover-

eign native peoples continued to ﬁght to preserve their autonomy. Rather than

trying to negotiate a peaceful end to hostilities with t he Native Americans,

Amherst opted to inﬂame their enmity. He banned ceremonial-gift giving to all

Native Americans during negotiations in 1761 and began encouraging British

settlers t o begin building permanent communities around British forts. The

resentment over these actions would live long after the French and Indian War

technically ended.

The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1763. The

terms of the agreement ceded all of France’s claims to North America to the

British, with the exception of New Orleans, which was ceded to Spain. Spain,

who had belatedly entered the conﬂict as a French ally, yielded its claim to Florida

to Great Britain.

—John R. Burch Jr.

Further Reading

Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British

North America, 1754–176 6. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

Jennings, Francis. Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies & Tribes in the Seven Years War

in America. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.

Johnston, A. J. B. Endgame 1758: The Promise, the Glory, a nd t he Despair of Lou is-

bourg’s Last Decade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2007.

Schwartz, Seymour I. The French and Indian War 1 754–1763: The Imperial Struggle for

North America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Neolin (dates unknown)

Neolin, also known as “The Delaware Prophet,” was a Lenni Lenape who rose to

prominence after experiencing a religious vision sometime during the early

1760s. His subsequent religious prophecies helped inspire Pontiac’s Rebe llion in

1763.

In his religious vision, the Master of Life taught Neolin that the reason why the

path to Heaven for Native Americ ans had become more difﬁcult to t raverse w as

that they had become too dependent on Europeans and their trade goods. To avoid

going to Hell, Native Americans were required to abstain from drunkenness, hunt

in the traditional fashion with bow and arrow, cease their dependence on European

Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763) 119

trade goods, set aside intertribal warfare, and drive the British from their home-

lands. Ironically, the presence of Heaven and Hell in his nativist vision indicated

the inﬂuence of European Christianity. Neolin reinforced his teachings to his

adherents through a prayer they were required to recite twice a day, in the morning

and the evening, and a map to Heaven that included the Master of Life’s

requirements.

Neolin’s religious movement spread quickly with the aid of other prophets

because it placed the blame for all of the ills that native peoples were experiencing

on Europeans. For Native Americans who had suffered through displacement from

their homelands, constant warfare, starvation, and epidemic disease, Neolin prom-

ised a brighter future once they repudiated and repelled the British interlopers that

had brought them so much misery. Although Neolin’s religious movement was but

one of many factors that led to the eruption of warfare in 1763, it provided a means

for Native American military leaders, such as Pontiac, to set aside intertribal rival-

ries and ﬁght together against a common enemy. Although Pontiac was inﬂuenced

by Neolin’s religious teachings, he selectively utilized the prophet’s doctrines.

Pontiac did not advocate the abandonment of European technologies. He also

was not anti-European, as he hoped that a Native American victory would herald

the reestablishment of New France. Pontiac endeavored to direct the ire of his

followers against the British.

During the spring of 176 3, a se ries of attacks by native groups such as the

Delaware, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Potawatomie, Shawnee, and Wyandots were launched

against British installations throughout the Great Lakes region and the Ohio River

Valley. Neolin, who was with Pontiac during the siege of the British fort at Detroit,

had promised the warriors that the Master of Life assured them of victory. Despite

some initial success, victory proved elusive. Following Pontiac’s failure to capture

the British fort at Detroit in 1764, Neolin faded into obscurity. Although his per-

sonal inﬂuence had waned, his nativist rhetoric and teachings continued to inﬂu-

ence other Native American religious leaders, most notably Tenskwatawa, “The

Shawnee Prophet.”

—John R. Burch Jr.

Further Reading

Cave, Alfred A. Prophets of the Great Spirit: Native American Revitalization Movements

in Eastern North America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

Dowd, Gregory Evans. A Spirite d Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for

Unity, 1745–1815. Baltimore: Johns Hopk ins University Press, 1992.

Dowd, Gregory Evans. War under H eaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations & the British

Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

120 Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763)

Ohio River Valley

The Ohio River Valley was vaguely deﬁned during the colonial era as the area west

of the Allegheny River in present-day Pennsylvania to the Muskingum River in

present-day Ohio. The Ohio River marked the southern border of the area, which

extended northward into portions of the Great Lakes region.

As a result of a series of conﬂicts with a number of native groups, most notably

the Erie and the Shawnee during the 1600s, the Iroquois Confederacy claimed

dominion over the sparsely populated Ohio River Va ll ey. Begi nni ng in the early

1700s, the population of the region began growing rapidly as native groups, such

as the Delaware, Shawnee, and Iroquois, began establishing communities within

the region. Many of these new immigrants had been displaced from their home-

lands in the east due to the growth of the British c olonies. Other native groups

from the west also migrated to the region in hopes of exploiting the abundance

of available game for the purpose of trade. These migrants, especially the Shawnee

and Delaware, showed little deference to the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois,

also known as Mingoes, proved unable to impose their will on these native groups,

which helped destabilize the region as native leaders competed against each other

both economically and militarily.

Representatives of France and Great Britain sought alliances with the various

native groups within the Ohio River Valley. Native American leaders actively

played the two European powers against each other to beneﬁt their interests. The

desire of the European powers to curry favor wit h the native groups led to a con-

stant inﬂux of European goods into their communities. Native Americans became

dependent on access to trade goods, which led them to choose sides when th e

Seven Years’ War erupted in North America.

The conclusion of the Seven Years’ War in 1763 was disastrous for all native

peoples in the valley, even those who had fought in the war as British allies. They

had lost the ability to play New France against the British, which weakened their

negotiating power. The natives soon discovered that Great Brita in w as not inter-

ested in negotiations of any sort w ith them. Great Britain’s commander in ch ief,

General Amherst, went so far as to even cut off traditional gift giving that helped

native leaders maintain their authority within their home communities. Great Brit-

ain had come to consider the Ohio River Valley theirs by right of conquest and

began encouraging settlement of the region by their colonists. Faced with a

heavy-handed foe that had no interest s in peac eable coexistenc e, native peoples

within the Ohio River Valley were left only with the option of ﬁghting against

Great Britain or ﬂeeing the area entirely.

—John R. Burch Jr.

Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763) 121

Further Reading

Hinderaker, Eric. Elusive E mpires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673–

1800. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Hinderaker, Eric, and Peter C. Mancall. At the Edge of Empire: The Backcountry in British

North America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

Hurt, R. Douglas. The Ohio Frontier: Crucible of the Old Northwest, 1720–1830. Bloom-

ington: Indiana University Press, 1998.

McConnell, Michael N. A Country Between: The Upper O hio Valley and Its Peoples,

1724–1774. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992.

White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes

Region, 1650–1815. New York: Cambrid ge University Press, 1991.

Pontiac (d. 1769)

Very little is known about Pontiac’s early years. Approximations of his birth year

range from 1714 to 1720. By the late 1740s, he had become a respected war leader

among the Ottawa who was valued as an ally by New France. During the Seven

Years’ War, it is believed that he fought alongside the French at both Fort

Duquesne and Fort William Henry in 1757.

122 Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763)

Pontiac, an excellent military strategist,

instigated and led the greatest Native

American uprising ever faced by the

British in colonial North America. His call

for a pan-tribal alliance nearly succeeded

in stopping white encroachment onto

Native American lands, and served as a

model for later resistance efforts led by

Little Turtle, Tecumseh, and Black Hawk.

(North Wind Picture Archives)

Sometime in th e early 1760s, Pontiac came under the sway of Neolin, the

Delaware Prophet. Although Pontiac ec hoed Neolin’s c all to r eject European

culture and goods, there is evidence that suggests that Pontiac’s interpretation of

Neolin’s teachings excluded the French. It is believed that Pontiac’s Rebellion

was launched, at least partially, in the hopes that Native American succe ss would

be followed by the return of the French i nto the region. While France, through

its settlements in Illinois, did s upply Pontiac and his confederates with some

supplies and weapons, it rebuffed his efforts to gain active military assistance in

the ﬁeld.

While Pontiac has been immortalized as the primary leader of Pontiac’s Rebel-

lion, he was but one of many inﬂuential Native American l eaders in a loosely

organized confederation. He did provide the conﬂict’s opening salvo when he led

a multitribal force against Fort Detroit on May 9, 1763. During the early stages

of the conﬂict, more than eight forts fell or were abandoned by the British. While

other native leaders were ﬁnding military success, Pontiac unsuccessfully

besieged Fort Detroit until October 1763. The combination of a British counterat-

tack that had reversed the initial successes, a smallpox epidemic, and the realiza-

tion that the French were not going to intervene on their behal f led to a collapse

of the Native American confederacy that had la unched the conﬂi ct. While the

war had effe ctively been over for several years, Pontiac ﬁn ally came to a peace

agreement with the British at Fort Oswego in 1766.

Following the signing of the peace treaty, the British mistakenly believed that

Pontiac was a valuable ally who would help allay Native American militancy

within the region. While Pontiac did his part by ignoring calls from native

groups in the west to continue warring with the British, his own people came

to question his loyalty and motives. It is believed that he was severely beaten

on multiple occasions before being exiled by the Ottawa from his home commu-

nity. With his reputation in tatters, Pontiac m oved to southern Illinois. While

visiting the town of Cahokia on April 20, 1769, he was clubbed and then

stabbed to deat h by a Peoria , whose people were part of t he Illinois Confed-

eracy. The attack was probably in retaliation for Pontiac’s stabbing of an Illinois

chief in 1766.

—John R. Burch Jr.

Further Reading

Dowd, Gregory Evans. War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations & the British

Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Middleton, Richar d. Pontiac’s War: Its Causes, Course and Consequences. New York:

Routledge, 2007.

White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indian, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes

Region, 1650–1815. New York: Cambrid ge University Press, 1991.

Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763) 123