FrUO
Frontier Retreat on the Upper Ohio. edited by louise phelps
Kellogg. publications of the state historical society of Wis-
consin, vol. 24. madison: state historical society of Wis-
consin, 1917.
gcp
george croghan papers. cadwalader collection, ser. iV.
historical society of pennsylvania.
abbreviations
xv
gd
schmick, Johann Jacob, and Johann roth. gnadenhütten di-
ary, 1773– 77. translated by William n. schwarze and robert
h. Brennecke. Box 144. records of the moravian mission
among the indians of north america, 1735– 1900. archives
of the moravian church, Bethlehem, pa. microfilm.
gratz
gratz collection. historical society of pennsylvania.
grc
George Rogers Clark Papers. edited by James alton James.
collections of the illinois state historical library, vols. 8, 19.
springfield: illinois state historical library, 1912– 24.
gWp
george Washington papers. american memory, library of
congress, https://www.loc.gov/collections/george- washing
ton- papers/.
harmar
Josiah harmar papers. William l. clements library, ann
arbor, mi.
hsp
historical society of pennsylvania.
inF
irvine- newbold Family papers, ser. 1. historical society of
pennsylvania.
Jones
Jones, david. A Journal of Two Visits Made to Some Nations
of Indians on the West Side of the River Ohio in the Years 1772
and 1773. 1774; new york: arno, 1971.
mcclure
mcclure, david. Diary of David McClure, Doctor of Divinity,
1748– 1820. edited by Franklin B. dexter. new york: Knicker-
bocker, 1899.
mcKee
[mcKee, alexander]. “extract from my Journal from the 1st
may 1774 containing indian transactions &ca.” papers re-
lating to indians, 1750– 1775, george chalmers papers,
1606– 1812. new york public library. microfilm.
mmd
The Moravian Mission Diaries of David Zeisberger, 1772–
1781. edited by herman Wellenreuther and carola Wessel.
translated by Julie tomberlin Weber. University park:
pennsylvania state University press, 2005.
morgan
morgan, george. george morgan letterbooks, 1775– 79.
p- 410. carnegie library of pittsburgh. microfilm.
mphs
Historical Col ections: Col ections and Researches Made by the
Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society. 40 vols. lansing,
mi: Wynkoop, hallenbeck, & crawford co., 1874– 1929.
pa
Pennsylvania Archives. 12 vols. edited by samuel hazard.
philadelphia: Joseph severns & co., 1852– 56.
xvi
abbreviations
pa2– pa6
Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd to 6th ser. harrisburg, 1879– 1935.
pFh
correspondence and papers of general sir Frederick haldi-
mand, 1758– 1784. london: World microfilm, 1977.
Wainwright, nicholas B., ed. “turmoil at pittsburgh: diary
of augustine prevost, 1774.” Pennsylvania Magazine of His-
tory and Biography 85, no. 2 (1961): 111– 62.
pWJ
The Papers of Sir Wil iam Johnson. 12 vols. albany: state Uni-
versity of new york, 1921– 63.
rprg
records of pennsylvania’s revolutionary governments,
1775– 90. rg 27. pennsylvania state archives, harrisburg.
microfilm. page reference indicates reel:frame.
rUO
Thwaites, reuben gold, and louise phelps Kellogg, eds. The
Revolution on the Upper Ohio, 1775– 1777. madison: Wiscon-
sin historical society, 1908.
rVri
Van schreeven, William J., robert l. scribner, and Brent
tarter, eds. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Indepen-
dence. 7 vols. charlottesville: University press of Virginia,
1973– 83.
scp
The St. Clair Papers: The Life and Public Services of Arthur
St. Clair. 2 vols. edited by William henry smith. cincinnati,
Oh: robert clarke & co., 1882.
tgp
Thomas gage papers. William l. clements library, ann
arbor, mi.
Vsp
palmer, William p., ed. Calendar of Virginia State Papers and
Other Manuscripts. 11 vols. richmond, Va: r. U. derr, 1875–
93.
Wic
Washington- Irvine Correspondence. edited by c. W. Butter-
field. madison, Wi: david atwood, 1882.
yeates
Jasper yeates correspondence, 1762– 86. Box 740. yeates pa-
pers. historical society of pennsylvania.
Unsettling the West
This page intentionally left blank
introduction
in the summer of 1772, a recent dartmouth graduate, david mcclure, set out
to bring christianity to the indians of the Ohio Valley. as he trudged across
the alleghenies, he met fifteen packhorses headed eastward, hauling cannon-
bal s. The British empire, mcclure learned, could no longer afford its garri-
son at Fort pitt, and so the imperial ordnance now marched away from the
frontier he hoped to civilize.1 as he watched the horses pass, the young mis-
sionary likely wondered what he had gotten himself into. British influence
over the Ohio Valley— tenuous to begin with— was waning further, leaving
the region’s peoples free from imperial oversight. The West was becoming
wilder— or so it seemed.
like mcclure, many histories of the Ohio Valley maintain that imperial
weakness bred frontier wildness. The region’s ensuing colonization, one sug-
gests, unfolded “from the bottom up,” driven by the dreams of ordinary colo-
nists who hungered for land and bristled at government meddling. an array
of medical and aquatic metaphors conveys the organic force of this migra-
tion: tens of thousands succumbed to a “land fever” that made them pour,
flood, and surge across the appalachians. attitude and impulse also seem to
explain intercultural violence: indians and colonists hated one another, and
with no state to restrain them they slaughtered at wil . But a closer look cal s
these explanations into question. colonists coveted indian land, but they
colonized new areas only where they had some hope of gaining legal title.
horrific violence ensued, but its scale varied sharply over time. When gov-
ernments ignored the region, relative peace prevailed. When they tried to
control it, hostilities escalated. intercultural hatred persisted throughout but
led to war only when government initiatives empowered the region’s inhabi-
tants to fight. rather than springing from state absence, the horrors of the
period stemmed from governments’ intrusive presence.2
a gaggle of polities contended for power in the revolutionary Ohio Val-
ley. The six nations of the haudenosaunee in the north and the cherokee
2
introduction
Wyandots, delawares, and shawnees insisted they owned much of the same
land. a series of le
gal y dubious treaties with europeans complicated matters
further. The proprietary government of pennsylvania and the royal govern-
ment of Virginia bickered over ill- defined borders, even as imperial officials
vetted proposals for new western colonies. in 1774, Britain declared Ohio to
be part of canada. in 1775 and 1776, the colonists of the atlantic seaboard
toppled their old regimes and declared themselves “free and independent
states,” while a continental congress struggled to coordinate a united strug-
gle against the empire. in 1783, Britain surrendered all territory south of the
lakes to the newly independent United states, but the region’s indian nations
pointed out that they had never ceded the land to anyone. The British at least
intermittently encouraged native claims, and refused to hand over their great
lakes forts until 1796. meanwhile, the late 1780s and early 1790s brought a
new “northwest territory” north of the Ohio, new constitutions for pennsyl-
vania and the United states, and the separation of Kentucky’s government
from Virginia. Throughout, agents of different governments argued and
sometimes fought over their competing claims to authority.3
These ubiquitous disputes suggest hobbesian chaos, but they can be bet-
ter understood as part of a process of state building that transcended the rise
and fall of specific governments. rather than clearly defined institutions set
apart from civil society, governments in the Ohio Valley comprised “exten-
sive, fluid networks of people” pursuing a wide range of dissimilar and even
contradictory goals. in this world, modern distinctions between state and
nonstate actors, or between government and civil society, had little mean-
ing. policies approved in london, Williamsburg, or philadelphia had little
effect without the cooperation and influence of local allies, creating ample
room to resist, negotiate, or reshape state authority. specific governments
came and went, but their diverse constituents usual y continued their work
under the aegis of a different government, in hopes of building a more ad-
vantageous political order. Ohio Valley inhabitants’ visions for that future
varied immensely but general y involved some sort of composite polity that
balanced local self- rule with the protections of a larger empire. rather than
either resisting or submitting to state authority, indians and colonists pur-
sued “advantageous interdependence.” They cherished local autonomy, yet
wanted to participate in a political system strong enough to effectively regu-
late trade, resolve disputes, enforce boundaries, and guard against attack.
Though they decried unwelcome government meddling, few indians or col-
onists savored the thought of pursuing these goals independently. Far from
introduction
3
“car[ing] little for states,” they sought to shape the emerging state to suit
their own ends.4
Understanding state building in the Ohio Valley requires close attention
to both intracultural divisions and intercultural alliances. Both indian and
colonial societies comprised a mosaic of distinct geographic and cultural
communities, in which individuals responded to conflicts in myriad ways.
Though Ohio indians broadly shared a commitment to some kind of territo-
rial sovereignty, individuals adopted diverse and often conflicting strategies
in order to secure it. most colonists in the region aspired to own land, but
when, where, and how they tried to do so varied substantial y, and their am-
bitions fueled internecine conflict at least as often as unity. lacking either
strong coercive institutions or broad political consensus, Ohio Valley inhabi-
tants could wage war, make peace, and pursue their various goals only by
building coalitions. as in modern states, coalition politics often made strange
bedfellows, as individuals and communities with different and even contra-
dictory long- term goals joined to pursue common short- term objectives. it
entailed searching for allies with overlapping interests, articulating those in-
terests effectively, and continual y finessing divergent aims. to unify amid so
much diversity, the coalition builders, or brokers, often manipulated or dis-
torted information in order to obscure or downplay differences among
allies— at least enough to permit cooperation, for a time.5
more durable alliances linked such brokers with influential patrons: in-
vestors, military commanders, or political authorities, usual y based outside
the region. Brokers provided patrons with information and promoted their
interests in exchange for credit, influence peddling, and official appoint-
ments. rather than a zero- sum game, in which state institutions gained
power at the expense of their subjects, such relationships tended to be symbi-
otic, with both patrons and brokers gaining advantages through col abora-
tion. Thanks to patronage, brokers gained influence in their communities,
enabling them to both better serve patrons and cultivate clients of their own.
representatives of colonial governments were especial y attractive patrons,
despite their lack of effective authority, because they could offer a wide array
of resources: trade goods, food, weapons, teachers, soldiers, and land titles.
patronage networks tended to be more stable and durable than other coali-
tions, but as interests, strategies, and opportunities shifted, brokers might
switch patrons or cultivate competing patrons simultaneously. patrons, too,
might abandon brokers when they found other, more useful allies.6 But
during the revolutionary War, as British- and american- allied coalitions
4
introduction
spawned mounting intercultural violence, Ohio Valley communities grew
more dependent on government patronage, limiting their ability to resist
state demands.
scholarly explanations of those horrors understandably emphasize cul-
tural and ideological factors. competition for land, as well as the traumas of
recent wars, fueled hatred between indians and colonists, offering ample mo-
tive for murder. contrasting beliefs about violence deepened the antagonism.
For many Ohio indians, permissibility of killing hinged on collective identity.
They broadly accepted violence against communities with whom the perpe-
trator’s own people were at war, while condemning the killing of those with
whom one’s people were at peace. in the latter case, the killer’s extended fam-
ily and nation were expected to atone for the injury or face collective retalia-
tion. captured enemies could be ritual y adopted— absorbing their physical
being into the captors’ community— or ritual y killed to secure their spiritual
power. By contrast, european and colonial ideas about violence depended—
at least in theory— on the attributes of the specific victim and perpetrator.
individuals who appeared dangerous— enemy combatants, rebellious slaves,
or other threatening figures— could be killed, but noncombatants, especial y
women and children, were ordinarily to be spared. Wrongdoers were subject
to personal punishment; their families and communities, general y speaking,
&
nbsp; were not. By the late eighteenth century, indians and europeans in the great
lakes region and Ohio Valley understood these differences and accommo-
dated them out of necessity, but few recognized the other’s value system as
legitimate. above al , many colonists denied that their prohibitions of mur-
der applied to indians at al . citing the israelites’ extirpation of Old testa-
ment foes, some described the indiscriminate killing of native people as a
holy calling. Because of such attitudes, colonial courts almost invariably
failed to convict murderers of indians.7
But while cultural differences and hatreds help explain violence, they do
not account for the full range of intercultural bloodshed, or its ebbs and
flows. Violence often sprang from everyday interactions like tavern bickering
or haggling over trade, circumstances that jar with the presumption of ubiq-
uitous intercultural hostility. motives for premeditated killing varied: many
acted on hatred and vengeance, but some also aimed to impress an audience,
to serve a spiritual purpose, to comply with orders, or to facilitate theft.
equal y important, the scale of violence shifted dramatical y over time, rang-
ing from sporadic and isolated murders to wars of attrition. noting these
ambiguities and variations does not deny that categorical hatred made
introduction
5
everything worse. But hatred alone does not suffice to explain how, when,
and why Ohio Valley inhabitants killed one another. The story of these atroc-
ities hinges on what happened between “acquisition of a violence- promoting
idea and direct participation in mayhem.”8 in this case, the escalation and
de- escalation of hostilities correlates closely with the ever- shifting influence
of governments. When those disposed to violence enjoyed access to govern-
ment patronage, or had reason to expect official backing, bloodshed esca-
lated. When government support diminished, violence lessened apace.
Unstable and ineffective governments exerted so much influence because
both indians and colonists sought to use government resources for their own
ends. competition for state patronage magnified the influence of govern-
ment officials, while conflicts between rival governments forced officials to