Check for web archive captures
Bringing History to Life (or Death)
By lindamuralidharan on 2011-06-23 23:15:12
After some dialogue in the comments section related to a previous blog post on this site, I decided to do a little more
research into the civilian casualties that occurred in the Mohawk Valley during the period of the American Revolution.
I had previosly read another book about the expedition George Washington sent through central New York State to
"eliminate" the threat to the Patriots from those Indian tribes that had fought so effectively on the side of the Tories and King
George. This time I picked up the book Bloody Mohawk, by Richard Berleth. This book gives a lot more detail as well as
the bigger context of escalating hostilities across a period of years.
I learned that at the close of the war...a closure pleasing to the Patriots and most Americans of today but grievous indeed to
the dedicated Tories, English, and the Indians who believed supporting "their" King was the right thing to do...10,000 people
or one third of the previous population of the broader Mohawk Valley had been killed. Some of these did join the Patriot
militias at one time or another and lost their lives engaged in battles, but the majority were civilians. These included Tory
and Patriot farmers, trades people, clergy and the like along with Indians, women and children included.
I always knew the Iroquois Confederacy had a very sophisticated from of self-governance, but I was here reminded that they
had a ritual way of going about war. It was not undertaken lightly or without the appropriate considerations by elders, and
the wars were generally fought to settle a grievance, protect a territory, etc., and it was limited in nature. Some of the enemy
would be killed, prisoners would be taken, and so on, but these were not wars of annihilation but fought to a specific end.
After the Revolutionary War, the Federation was basically non-existent, partly because first the English and then the
Americans manipulated different tribes into joining the hostilities when many of their own leaders counseled neutrality in
the "white people's war". We hear so many references to the Indians as savages and yet prior to the war the relationships
among the European settlers and the Indians were more cooperative than otherwise. Some converted to Christianity and an
agrarian life style at the urging of dedicated clergy who worked among them. Obviously Indians taught members of the
white culture about surviving in the wilderness and other skills. After the war there were hardly any Indians left and the
impoverished white folks left to rebuild no longer had close ties of blood and good neighborliness with the remaining
Indians.
Many of the civilians on both sides lost their lives to starvation and exposure to extreme weather conditions. First the
English encouraged those fighting on their side and especially the Indians to raid homesteads and villages to gain food
supplies and to weaken any defenses and resources the Patriots had to retain the territory and strengthen battles against the
British elsewhere. Whether through the raiding of forts or in attacking individual homesteads, vast numbers of civilians lost
their lives, their homes, their food supplies and their livelihoods.
Then Washington organized the major Clinton and Sullivan expeditions to wipe out Indian support and supplies for the same
reasons on the Patriots’ side. Large Indian towns, thriving communities, and excellent homes were destroyed along with
grain and livestock. Women, children and men were killed or driven West toward Fort Niagara and hoped for sustenance
from the British. Very few were left after the war or tried to return. Whether they had been in tribes fighting with the
Patriots or the Tories, no consideration for war reparations or rebuilding of their communities was included in the peace
treaty.
As these genocidal events went on toward the ending of hostilities, the element of revenge affected the motives of both
sides. Prisoners were rarely taken but rather as many as possible were killed on the battle field or wounded and left to die.
If you truly believed in your own cause, many of the brutal tactics practiced by your side would have made sense to you.
So...was this terrorism? Surely by today's standards since civilians were terrorized in order to effect matters of governance.
Was this genocide? Surely by today's standards both sides practiced genocide. Some people on both sides objected to the
extreme measures used, especially in the English Parliament where people spoke out significantly about some of the brutal
practices of their military tacticians.
I also learned that time and again leaders on both sides made serious mistakes in strategy. Sometimes the leaders planned
the right course of action, but there was not complete military discipline so seconds in command over-ruled the top and went
on to foolish acts that resulted in misuse of resources or ambushes in which they suffered very heavy losses. The
Americans were less well trained in military discipline so the latter feature of disagreement among the ranks was more
common than among the British. Either way, some poor decisions cost lives, and the Americans might have ended the war a
little sooner if some blunders had been avoided. Bringing history to life, this book helps see all of these people on both
sides as people with great talents, major faults, and different personalities that remind us of people we know today and
arguments we are familiar with today when it comes to debating strategies and tactics for war or public policy.
I think sometimes we over do the glorification of soldiers who fought for the type of freedom we preferred at the
time...freedom from the King and ultimately freedom to devise a system of government with even more rights and civil
protections than the British had at the time. (They have certainly caught up since.) In fact, many civilians stayed and
farmed on the rich land of the greater Mohawk Valley and often spent a lot of time collecting in forts from which they beat
off raiders. They stayed and worked tirelessly in very vulnerable territory. Thus civilians made great contribiutions to the
war effort and many suffered and died in the process.
Well, what to make of all this. We learned some of it in history class or magazine articles or on trips to historical sites. I
myself returned this week from another trip to Fort Ticonderoga with visiting out of state grandchildren. And yet, I don't
remember the lessons growing up personalizing the history so much or explaining the contexts so well. I just remember
learning that there was some degree of a civil war as Patriots and Tories living in the same communities often attacked each
other, and that many Tories were imprisoned, intimidated, and their properties confiscated. Do we tend to gloss over the
realities of history? the realities of war? the special horrors of civil wars with brother turning against brother and sister
against sister? Do we ignore in our classrooms the very scant justification for our abuse of the Indians, many of whom
fought for the same cause as the Patriots?
This book recounts an event near the end of the hostilities as the British and their Indian allies lost an important battle.
Walter Butler, a very competent Tory leader was slain and scalped and his body left in the woods. Late at night a contingent
of more or less secret Tories from a nearby town snuck out and dragged the body back to town. There, in a church I have
often visited and where I know the clergy and congregants as social activists, his body was apparently buried anonymously
inside the building...a Church of England establishment at the time. As I said, talk about bringing history to life...yes, in the
form of both a dead man and of people who were living in those times who still wanted his body treated with respect. As I
said , I am very familiar with this church and its present day members.
So...our former enemies, the former terrorists against my own historical interest now have modern day counterparts who are
now allies and loyal friends.
Think of the Taliban. Imagine the transformation over time...into the future. If we let them get on with their lives, and
only interface with them in the way we interface with, say, China, we or our children will be operating international
exchange programs with them. Just as we do with people in Vietnam. Trading, visiting, learning.
We don't exactly agree with the handling (or mishandling) of civil rights in China or Vietnam...but that does not mean we
remain enemies. Oh, and by the way, as we practice identifying with folks of old as though they were neighbors of today, I
learned that there was more than racism against the Indians. There was "racism" or "ethnic" discrimination among the
Europeans. I never realized that the most prosperous folks along much of the Valley (Palatine, German Flats, etc.) were
German and Dutch, and that the Scotch Irish of that era were more hard scrabble and more envious and resentful of the more
affluent Dutch and German landlords. At some points during the revolution that prompted the Scotch Irish to give more aid
and comfort to the British than to the Patriots.
History comes to life in the mind as a result of a clever author. History shows so much unnecessary death and destruction
that one just wonders what progress we are making in settling disputes without killing so many men, women and children.
Reports from Libya and Afghanistan suggest we are not making much progress in that regard...-however much we sing the
praises of our technological progress in war weaponry.
I guess that's the question. Do we want people reading about us a couple of centuries into the future to remember us for the
many dead in the history of our era or for the ways we figured out to resolve conflicts with creativity and a minimum of
bloodshed?
