Summary Of James Laxer's Tecumseh And Brock

“The Indian presence precipitated the formation of an American identity” (Axtell 992). Ostracized by numerous citizens of the United States today, this quote epitomizes Axtell’s beliefs of the Indians contributing to our society. Unfortunately, Native Americans’ roles in history are often categorized as insignificant or trivial, when in actuality the Indians contributed greatly to Colonial America, in ways the ordinary person would have never deliberated. James Axtell discusses these ways, as well as what Colonial America may have looked like without the Indians’ presence. Throughout his article, his thesis stands clear by his persistence of alteration the Native Americans had on our nation. James Axtell’s bias delightfully enhances his thesis, he provides a copious amount of evidence establishing how Native Americans contributed critically to the Colonial culture, and he considers America as exceptional – largely due to the Native Americans.

The crown depicted the Indians as intractable, only to find that settlers resorted to violence against the Indians precisely because of their supposed intractability. Indigenous peoples, for their part, fought among themselves and against advancing settlers. All groups sought to “territorialize” their societies to secure themselves against competitors. In the final chapters, Langfur extends and qualifies this complicated story. In the later eighteenth century, settler pressures grew, stressing crown policies and threatening indigenous social orders, until all-out war broke out after 1808. For Langfur this was no Manichean battle between European invaders and indigenous victims. To a dominant narrative of violence he juxtaposes a “parallel history of cooperation” among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, and he concludes that war itself must be understood in terms of “the relationship of cooperative enemies.”

Aside from the “rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,” and the controversy surrounding its victors, the War of 1812 was best described as “perhaps the least remembered of American wars because it was fought in such a left-handed slapdash manner on both sides.” 1 The War of 1812 took place in a time shortly after the United States declared independence from Great Britain, but with this newfound freedom came some challenges. For example, Britain’s new lack of control over their American lands brought forth some underlying tension when it came to the cases of alliances and international trade. In addition to the pressure caused by Britain’s loss of power, Napoleon’s campaign in Europe piled on even more stress. This conflict escalated, bringing both sides to make foolish, rash decisions that eventually led to a war recognized by few. Though the War of 1812 is considered an American victory, it can be argued that there was no true victor due to a lack of success in achieving any original goals.

The history books should be re-written as to include Major-General James Wolfe as one of the founding fathers of our country. During the Seven years War he served as part of the British military and was the commander-in-chief of the British, American, and Highlander forces at the Battle of Quebec. His plan of attack up the Anse du Foulon to the Plains of Abraham was not only incredibly daring, but highly effective as it was this decisive move that allowed Wolfe’s army to capture the city of Quebec. He caught the French forces completely off guard and was therefore able to even out the numbers to almost completely even fighting forces. The question that lies ahead of me in this paper is to answer a two part question to the best of my

The Compromise of 1763: How the Compromise of 1763 resolve conflict between Native Americans and settlers

The British enrolled about fifty thousand American Loyalists and enlisted the services of many Indians, who though unreliable, who fair-weather fighters, inflamed long stretches of the frontier”(135). This extra help from colonists, Loyalist, hessians, and the Indians only add to the army creating a bigger advantage towards the colonists. Even though they did not win it can said that the British seemed to have a bigger lead on the colonists. Colonists presented themselves as weak and disorganized, where one would presume that they wouldn’t win at all, “Yet the American rebels were badly organized for war. From the earliest days, they had been almost fatally lacking in unity, and a new nation lurched forward uncertainly like an uncoordinated centipede”(136). Organization is important for the colonists because they are competing against a well-developed and trained army.

Anderson, Fred. 2000. Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1756. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Pp. 746

Twenty-nine years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the Revolutionary War between America and Britain, was the year that marked the beginning of a new conflict that would last America the next three years, the War of 1812. On June 16th of that year, President James Madison declared the start of a war that would greatly impact the future of our country. Britain, still one of the world's greatest superpowers, was currently warring with France at the time of the declaration, however, Britain's reputation as a formidable opponent stood strong. The War of 1812 held a great significance in the history of America: Reasonable purposes for conflict, major conflict with Native Americans, great controversy among its supporters and opposers, numerous honorable battles, the inclusion of African Americans in the war, a memorable conclusion, and notable results.

Tecumseh was a Shawnee Indian chief who had been born around 1768 near Springfield, Ohio. During the early 1800s, he started to oppose the United States, and attempted to create a confederation of Indian Tribes to rebel against the United States. One of the main reasons Tecumseh opposed the United States was the fact that white people were squatting on Native American land, and was forcing his people out. Although Tecumseh opposed whites, he knew how to speak their language. Tecumseh was described as a six-foot tall man with “fine” features. He had been rumored to be fluent in English, and most surprisingly, also in French. He also managed to turn his brother’s religious teachings into political movements in order to get his fellow Native Americans to support his movement. [Collins, pg 36-40]

It also give a momentous lift to the political or military careers of other men. The War of 1812 looked more to the past then to its future, it echoed the philosophy and problems of the American Revolution rather than exploring new ones. It was it second and last time that America was the underdog, tried to conquer Canada, and the Indians played any major role. The war was unusual in generating such heated political opposition and nearly distinctive in ending the war in a draw. Though most Americans pretended that they had win the war, they could point to a few gains to withstand this claim. It is this lack of victory that may best explain why the war was little

Native American leader Tecumseh dreamt of uniting natives to take back their land, traditions, and history. Although hesitant, native tribes one by one began to believe in Tecumseh’s ideas for the future. This posed a problem for the United States because on one hand, they had to defeat the British and on the other hand, they had to hold their ground against Tecumseh and his pan-Indian alliances. In 1813 at the Battle of Thames, Tecumseh was killed in battle thus eliminating hope among natives. Without their strong spoken leader, there was nothing to unite Indian tribes.

The defeat of the first United States army by a coalition of Native Americans is the focus in Collin Calloway’s The Victory with No Name. In this historical account, Calloway addresses what occurred on November 4th, 1791, when an Indian army consisting of a variety of Indian tribes, led by Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, ambushed the first American army near the Wabash River to protect themselves from American expansion of the Northwest Territory. The American army, led by Revolutionary War veteran Arthur St. Clair, was ill-equipped with men, horses, and weaponry, and ignorant about Indian whereabouts and tactics. Calloway organizes his argument by describing America’s desire for land, the invasion and settlement of Indian land, and the resistance formed by Native Americans. Calloway continues by illustrating the defeat of the American army and the aftermath of the battle between Native Americans and the U.S. By drawing on extensive historical evidence that illustrated the events before, during, and after the battle, Calloway presents a detailed historical narrative that challenges the idea that “winners write the history…even when they lose” and offers a narrative that shows both the Native American and the U.S. perspective, ultimately giving credit to the Indians for their victory. However, Calloway provides information that is irrelevant to his argument and the book, which makes it difficult to follow along throughout the story.

In West of the Revolution, Saunt explores eight notable moments of interaction, and often first contact, between “old world” colonial powers and indigenous peoples in North America that were occurring simultaneously with the English colonists’ declarations of independence and armed revolt. By providing the reader with a broader perspective of what was happening throughout America in 1776, Saunt illustrates that our collective understanding of what constituted America at that time tends to be remarkably limited and that colonial struggles were multi-faceted, depicted here in a series of snapshots of our land’s history that challenge, complicate, and clarify our conception of what America was. What emerges from this mosaic is a pattern of European national, economic, and religious interests, arrogant and ignorant in equal measure, infiltrating into native lands with consequent uneasy alliances and outright hostilities

Chapter 7 of Alan Taylor’s American Revolutions begins by describing the tense state of affairs between American Patriots and Native Indians in 1775. Both sides feared the other and were determined not to let their enemy defeat them. The Patriots were angry with the British for seeking alliance with the Indians, compromising their “racial solidarity”, in order to gain a military advantage. The Natives believed that American independence would be the catalyst for their downfall into slavery and landlessness. The author moves on to say that this was not the case with all tribes. For example, weak bands of Indians in the Carolinas allied with Patriots and fought in their army in hopes for protection after the war. However, the reality was that

Tecumseh’s Speech to the Osages, which he is believed to have given to his fellow Native Americans around 1811, is extremely powerful and passionate. What makes his speech powerful is the fact that it is his response to the events carried out by the colonists toward the Native Americans, which included the stealing of their land and the killing of their people. This clearly has a large impact on Tecumseh and the audience, which is evident throughout the speech.