Contested Territories: Native Americans and Non-Natives in the Lower Great Lakes, 1700-1850

“Foolish Young Men” and the Contested Ohio Country, 1783– 1795

35 “Foolish Young Men” and the Contested ohio Country, 1783–1795 sArAH e. MiLLer in the years following the American revolution, violence between native Americans and frontier settlers spiraled into reciprocal and uncontained depredations. Although many native American leaders and the government of the United states strove for peace, uncontrolled and unsanctioned men, both indian and American, committed serious depredations against each other. My work builds on studies by scholars such as richard slotkin, richard drinnon, James Merrell, and Colin Calloway, as well as the recent scholarship presented in daniel P. Barr’s edited work The Boundaries Between Us: Natives and Newcomers along the Frontier of the Old Northwest Territory (2006), Patrick Griffin’s American Leviathan: Empire, Nation, and Revolutionary Frontier (2007), and Peter silver’s Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America (2008). this chapter expands the study of violence on the frontier past the American revolution as it examines the coveted ohio territory during the first years of the United states. the ohio Country included much of modern day ohio, but stretched east towards Pittsburgh and west to the Wabash river. this area, most native Americans felt, had not been ceded to the United states. it was generally, but not unanimously, accepted by the natives that land south of the ohio river, referred to as Kentucky even before statehood, belonged to the United states. the treaty of Fort stanwix (1768) had established the ohio river as a boundary between Great Britain’s American colonies and indian territory. Within the ohio Country, and the larger northwest territory that encompassed it, lived a variety of native American tribes. For example, the 36| Sarah E. Miller Wyandots and delawares inhabited the eastern part of the region and were generally more responsive to governmental overtures. the shawnees and Miamis lived in the western sections that were eventually settled by polyglot communities along the Wabash river, resistant to Americans infringing on indian territory. indian leadership lacked coercive powers over their warriors, thus creating the complicated dynamic that is displayed in this study. indian chiefs, while greatly respected, could not compel all young men to follow their wishes, and sometimes dissident groups acted contrary to council decisions . Although some leaders of tribes were friendly with the United states, or at least condemned violence against settlers, they were unable to demand obedience. these “foolish young men” were often warriors from different tribes, although living in the same or nearby villages. Warriors sometimes initiated violence and sometimes sought revenge against frontier settlers for depredations. Conversely, Americans on the frontier, despite government discouragement, attacked indian settlements. neither side was interested in distinguishing between friend and foe, thus establishing an escalating spiral of violence on both sides of the ohio river. in 1794, secretary of state Henry Knox wrote his final report evaluating the continuing violence between native Americans and frontier settlers in the ohio Country. to President George Washington, he noted: the encroachment of white people is incessantly watched, and in unguarded moments, they are murdered by the indians. revenge [from previous depredations ] is sought, and the innocent frontier people are too frequently involved as victims in the cruel contest.1 this followed up on a report written five years earlier in which Knox told Washington: Hostilities have almost constantly existed between the people of Kentucky and the . . . indians. the injuries and murders have been so reciprocal, that it would be a point of critical investigation to know on which side they have been the greatest.2 despite efforts by both the United states government and indian councils and chiefs, the frontier between indian lands and American settlement was filled with acts of hostility. this violence could be seen as the continuation of a larger pattern of American frontier violence, with the origins impossible to sort out. Ultimately, the origins of the violence became less important The Contested Ohio Country| 37 than the fact that cycles of violence developed on the borders and made things difficult for political leaders who were broadly committed to some form of peace, however tenuous. it is clear that the men who perpetrated frontier violence acted on their own, without official sanction from their governments or councils. And the “foolish young men,” as the indian councils referred to their unruly warriors, had equally vicious counterparts among frontier settlers. When the treaty of Paris ended the American revolution in 1783, it did not mention the native Americans. However, the...