allied Wyandots at Upper sandusky. Others, displaced by american attacks,
gravitated toward different town clusters. The people of Buckongahelas, the
most consistently pro- British delawares, made their home on the mad river
among the repeatedly displaced shawnees. Others built new towns to the
northwest, among miamis on the upper maumee river. still more shawnees
and delawares moved farther west to the Wabash Valley or across the missis-
sippi. The dispersal of old town clusters and the emergence of new ones re-
flected the political diversity of Ohio indian nations. The Upper sandusky
cluster, led by pipe and the Wyandot dunquat, welcomed and accommo-
dated the americans, while the maumee towns were more attentive to British
messages from detroit. The mad river towns stood somewhere in between,
with the relatively militant Buckongahelas living just upriver from the me-
koche shawnees, who echoed pipe’s eagerness for peace. such divisions were
not new. although pipe and Buckongahelas both belonged to the delaware
Wolf phratry, pipe had long lived near lake erie and the Wyandots, while
Buckongahelas had closer ties to the scioto Valley shawnees. For decades,
dunquat’s sandusky Wyandots had alternately deferred to their detroit kin
and defied them. now, recognizing that a future american invasion could
reach and destroy their towns, pipe and dunquat resolved to befriend the
United states.5 With ethnic and national ties increasingly tenuous, these mul-
tiethnic town clusters became the fundamental units of Ohio indian
politics.
When douglass reached niagara, the last stop on his tour, he found less
welcoming hosts. his messages bolstered rumors that the British had
Failures, 1783–95
149
surrendered western lands to the United states, making their indian allies
“the dupes of the war.” The mohawk leader Joseph Brant, pipe’s wartime al y,
pressed the congressional emissary to recognize native sovereignty. douglass
claimed that the treaty of paris gave the United states an exclusive right to all
lands south of the great lakes; Brant countered that Britain could not give
up lands it did not own. later that summer, during a council at lower san-
dusky, Brant and British agent alexander mcKee insisted that the treaty left
intact the Ohio river boundary of 1768. Brant further called on all western
nations to deal with the United states collectively and sell no land without
consulting “the voice of the whole.” Where former generations of six nations
leaders had demanded deference to their league’s authority, Brant now envi-
sioned an interethnic pact in which shawnees, delawares, and other nations
enjoyed an equal voice. Those attending the sandusky council, including
dunquat, quickly agreed to Brant’s proposals.6 But the new coalition sat on
an ambiguous foundation: while everyone agreed that the americans should
respect the Ohio river boundary, they differed considerably on how to re-
spond if they did not.
in the summer of 1784, the United states invited six nations leaders to
meet at Fort stanwix, where British and haudenosaunee negotiators had
drawn the 1768 boundary. in accord with diplomatic protocols, Brant and the
league’s civil leadership stayed at home and sent a delegation of military com-
manders, who offered to help make peace between the United states and all
of the “free and independent” indian peoples east of the mississippi. instead,
the U.s. commissioners invited them to propose a new boundary between
their own nations and the United states. after several days’ discussion, the
allegheny seneca cornplanter suggested a large cession in present- day penn-
sylvania, offering the americans ample new land while preserving the
haudenosaunee homeland south and east of lake Ontario. The americans
countered by demanding that the six nations also surrender lands to the
west, including a corridor along the niagara river. together, the territory in
question encompassed one seneca community entirely, split another in half,
and cut off the six nations from allies in canada and Ohio. The delegation
protested but had few options. The commissioners branded the haudenos-
aunee “a subdued people” and warned that “you now stand out alone against
our whole force.” to underscore their words, armed militia surrounded the
fort, trapping the delegation inside. cornplanter haggled, winning a higher
purchase price and the right to hunt in ceded territory, but the americans
refused to accept any less land. rather than paving the way for peace, the
150
chapter 6
delegation left Fort stanwix having signed a treaty they had no authority to
make.7
a few months later, a similar scene unfolded on the upper Ohio. ini-
tial y, the United states invited the delaware and Wyandot to a council on
the cuyahoga river, relatively close to the Upper sandusky towns. hun-
dreds of delawares and Wyandots awaited them there in the december
venue to Fort mcintosh, about thirty miles downstream from pittsburgh. a
shorter and easier trip for the commissioners meant a much more arduous
one for their guests, ensuring that far fewer indians, and only those most
committed to befriending the United states, made the journey. pipe and
dunquat both attended, as did abraham Kuhn, a german- born Wyandot
leader from lower sandusky. Buckongahelas was absent, as were the detroit
Wyandots, without whose consent dunquat and Kuhn’s authority was at
best suspect. as at Fort stanwix, the congressional and pennsylvanian com-
missioners paraded their soldiers, demanded an immense territory, and of-
fered only token concessions. and as at Fort stanwix, the delaware and
Wyandot delegations final y signed the treaty, leaving hostages to show their
good intentions.8
as news of the treaties spread, protests mounted. Following Brant’s lead,
many Ohio indian leaders insisted that no legitimate treaty could take place
unless their nations first reached consensus among themselves. some lec-
tured american messengers that they could not expect to make a lasting
peace by “tak[ing] our chiefs prisoners, and com[ing] with soldiers at your
backs.” Buckongahelas traveled south to recruit southern indians to join the
united front. Brant pressed the British for military aid and told all who would
listen that Britain had not, and could not, give away indian lands. he and
other critics of the treaties repeatedly made clear that they wanted peace but
insisted that the americans “must not think to take what land they pleased.”
some claimed that by signing the treaty, pipe and dunquat had “broke faith”
with their people. The following summer, cornplanter tried to give back his
copy of the Fort stanwix treaty, insisting that the commissioners had lied
about its contents. But he, pipe, and dunquat all ultimately defended the
treaties. When pipe learned that a delaware hostage had escaped, he brought
his own son and nephew to replace him. They may have gambled that be-
friending the americans w
ould better serve themselves, and their communi-
ties, than the alternative.9 Their towns stood closer to the american
stronghold of Fort pitt, and farther from the British outposts on the lakes,
Failures, 1783–95
151
than other seneca, Wyandot, and delaware communities, leaving them more
vulnerable to attack. The imperative of physical security, after several years of
war, may have carried the greatest weight.
in mid- 1783, douglass had found Ohio indians eager for peace and
friendship with the United states. two years later, relative peace endured, but
goodwill had eroded. congress’s demands, and its denial of native sover-
eignty, fueled resentment and hostility. some veterans of the British alliance
now sought to build an enduring confederation that transcended ethnic divi-
sions. anticipating american hostility, they looked to canada for aid. even
so, fear of american attack, and desire for american patronage, prompted
some to accept the United states’ terms and to urge others to do the same. On
all sides, Ohio indians aimed to build enduring and mutual y advantageous
relationships with either the United states, Britain, or both, but they did so in
myriad ways.
less than a year after his meetings with pipe and Brant, douglass faced
defiance from a different quarter. While waiting for congress to pay him, he
won several government appointments in pennsylvania’s newly created Fay-
ette county, where he set about trying to establish “the authority of the court”
and instill a “habitude of obedience” among his new neighbors. he made lit-
tle progress, thanks to those he termed “the rabble of this country.” One
warm summer night, as Fayette tax collector philip Jenkins sat at home with
friends and family, three men charged through the door brandishing pistols
and clubs, their faces “streak’d with Black.” in thick german accents, the in-
vaders threatened to kill anyone who moved, then began beating Jenkins on
the head. in between blows, they demanded his commission, assessment
lists, and all the money he had collected. When Jenkins protested, they pum-
meled him again, then ransacked the house by candlelight. They warned that
if Jenkins or anyone else tried to collect taxes in the area again, he would “be
a dead man and we will burn all you have.” Then they made off with all his
money, papers, and valuables, including “a pocket Bottle, [a] razor and some
soap.”10
The people whom douglass aspired to govern had a long history of resist-
ing government authority, often by exploiting the boundary dispute between
Virginia and pennsylvania. Virginia had abandoned its claim in 1779, but
pennsylvania’s attempts to levy taxes nonetheless prompted “a general out-
cry.” dorsey pentecost, a former Virginia partisan who now served on penn-
sylvania’s executive council, urged his constituents to pay no taxes, calling
instead for the formation of a new western state. Following pentecost’s lead,
Ohio R.
Al egheny R.
Pittsburgh
s
P E N N S Y L V A N I A
n
We s t m o r e l a n d
C o u n t y
i
W
Wa s h i n g t o n
h
Y
ee
C o u n t y
o
l
u
a
in
gh
g
( 1 7 8 1 )
i
o
g
C
Reds
h
t
e
t
r
o
ny
.
n
e
R
.
C
n
r.
F a y e t t e C o u n t y
u
( 1 7 8 3 )
PA/VA border
o
surveyed 1784–86
Ch
O h i o
eat R
M
onongahela R.
.
M A R Y L A N D
C o u n t y
M
Ohio R.
y
n
e
M o n o n g a l i a C o u n t y
h
Agreed-upon state borders:
g
Disputed state borders:
County borders:
e V I R G I N I A
ll
A
Figure 7. The Forks of the Ohio region, post-1779 borders.
Failures, 1783–95
153
men drafted for militia duty ignored their assignments and instead ob-
structed government officials, especial y those involved in seizing the prop-
erty of bankrupt families. They demanded that their officers resign
pennsylvania commissions and threatened to tar and feather those who did
not. Others intimidated constables, shot at tax assessors, and declared them-
selves independent of pennsylvania. in June 1782, when an official surveying
party set out to mark the new state line, armed men refused to let them pass,
correctly deeming the boundary “a prelude to the taxes.” army officers feared
the separatists might try to seize Fort pitt and its arsenal. after the war, loy-
alist refugees joined the tax resisters, who grew more aggressive. Jenkins’s
assailants assaulted and robbed at least two other Fayette county tax collec-
tors. The state offered a £50 reward, but douglass had little hope of appre-
hending the culprits: they enjoyed too much support. When officials jailed
one suspected bandit, twenty- eight friends broke him out, then descended
on his captor’s home, stole his horse, and “cautioned him against meddling
with any of them thereafter.” not surprisingly, tax collection ground to a
halt.11 The government of pennsylvania had won independence from Britain,
but it struggled to police its own citizens.
in both the upper Ohio Valley and Kentucky, intracultural diversity and
competition heightened tensions further. ethnic, economic, and factional di-
visions had existed since the first colonists’ arrival. now a postwar financial
crisis heightened conflict between debtors and creditors. colonists along the
Ohio, who had borne the brunt of wartime attacks, resented less vulnerable
inhabitants who had spurned cal s for collective defense. meanwhile, tangled
land claims fueled years of litigation. in Kentucky, tensions emerged between
the ubiquitous scots- irish, known as “cohees,” and tidewater Virginians
called “tuckyahoes.” The latter included scions of the chesapeake gentry who
aspired to both landed wealth and political power, threatening the hard-
earned smal holdings of their humbler neighbors. The relatively irreligious
elite also grated against backcountry Baptists, whose egalitarian beliefs
threatened planters’ control over slaves and servants. The gentry considered
the Baptists “a very superstitious, hypocritical set” prone to “ranting.” For
their own part, Baptists thought the gentry had “no religion at al .” such con-
flicts hindered both governing and military recruiting. left to their own de-
vices, as one observer noted, Kentucky leaders could not assemble enough
men “to carry on any kind of expedition— such is the division amongst
them.”12
Other colonists crossed the Ohio. soon after the gnadenhütten massacre,
154
chapter 6
more than five hundred colonists reportedly backed a plan “to go settle on
the indians’ land.” some aimed to create “a new state on the muskingum”: the
territory of the United states’ delaware allies. They knew from long experi-
ence that the official system of land sales would favor the wealthy and well
connected. as one group told their new shawnee neighbors, they had to take
land “before their great people engross’d it, which they expected would soon
be the case.” like earlier colonists in the upper Ohio Valley and Kentucky,
this new wave gambled that preemptive occupation would secure them legal
title sometime in the future. some insisted that cutting down trees and plant-
ing crops entitled them to four hundred acres. such claims directly threat-
ened congress’s plans to pay war debts through land sales. One army officer
warned that, without intervention, “the whole Federal territory will not raise
One thousand pounds.” in the summer of 1783, dozens of emigrant- laden
boats passed Fort pitt “to encroach on the indian country.” The Fort pitt gar-
rison seized some of the boats, fired on others, and periodical y crossed the
Ohio to drive off homesteaders, with little long- term effect. By 1786, five to
ten heavily laden boats passed each day.13
But even as Ohio Valley colonists ignored specific government policies,
they used emerging state institutions for their own ends. rival factions
among the nascent colonial elite battled with one another to secure the per-
quisites of local office, such as fees for government services and influence
over contracts. The benefits of government appointments raised the stakes of
local elections. in pennsylvania, disappointed candidates often petitioned the
executive council to overturn results, alleging that their rivals had ignored
minimum property requirements or accepted voters who had not sworn alle-
giance. not surprisingly, the council tended to favor those known as loyal
civil servants. longtime pennsylvania partisans howled in protest when their