>> hello. i'm here in philadelphia, at the gilder lehrman study for american studies of the university of pennsylvania. i've spent the week with an amazing group of educators from all over the, country brought together under the auspices of the gilder lehrman institute of american history. this has been supported by the labor company of philadelphia and the pugh center for arts and heritage, through their program, redrawn, history indigenous and colonial

perspectives on america. we spent some time talking about how we might redraw early american history. we try to do that by suggesting that one productive way redrawing that history is to think in terms of a complicated and ever shifting set of contests among the three sets of actors, three sets of actors we have called native peoples, settlers or settler colonists, and european empires. now, it is probably obvious to folks what we mean when we think about native peoples, although it should not be that obvious except to stress that it is a plural term. we are talking about many different peoples who have many different histories and are constantly in historical motion through this period. european empires may be obvious, although once again, it is a plural term. we're talking about the french, the dutch, the spanish, the english, and occasionally some other powers. those two, those

empires were in motion, they were actually being created in the time we are talking about. so it is a complicated set of things. we have also been talking this week about a technical use of the term settler, and settler colonists. i wonder if i might just embarrass somebody here in the room, among these wonderful teachers, to try to take a crack at defining what we mean by settler colonists. >> i think it is the theory that settlers believe the land they arrived on belonged to them and not a native peoples and so they had to resign -- a right to residing that land in the native peoples were just gonna be erased. >> right. and that as well as a historical product. there may be some people who came to know the america from europe or elsewhere with the idea in their head that this land already belonged to them, but i think one of the things that we have been trying to think about in redrawn or the american history is to find ways of seeing how people come to see

their own right to owning this land as something that is involved in their position in north america as farmers, as families who come to see that they have a right to this land and in a weird way that lands never did belong to native americans, it belong to them and that as well as something we have to explain as a historical process. so we have been trying to think in terms of the three parts, european empires, native peoples, settler colonists, and we have talked about how, through a long period of struggle and controversies through the 17th and early 18th centuries, somehow around 1720, a rough balance of power was achieved between those three forces, between the empires, the settler colonists and the native peoples, always unstable, always hard to maintain, always

multiple and indifferent directions. again, we're talking with multiple of -- multitude of native peoples, various settlers with various perspectives, we are talking about various empires. a rough balance of power was achieved by about 1720, and that balance has several aspects to it. one of the important things is, to help us understand this three-way struggle, one of the important things was summed up by the governor of virginia in the early 17 twenties, who said a governor of virginia has to steer between a rock and a hard place, and what he meant by that was, it is always the job of a representative of the empire to try to mediate between the desire of settler columnist to conquer more land and to get the native peoples out of the way and the fact that if a governor tries to restrain that, he might have a civil war on his hands because the people will rebel against him, right? so, the three way

struggle involves often imperial representatives trying to keep a balance of power between native people and settler columnist, keep them from fighting with each other but also to keep them from rebellion against the imperial power who is trying to keep the, peace right? so, it is a delicate thing. how much joy let people expand? how much do i try to coerced native people into agreeing to let more and more land go into settler hands, how much do i worry that if i don't do that, my own people are going to start rebuilding against me? so i think one of the things we are trying to say is that early american history is not to a subtle struggles between europeans and native peoples, it is often a three-way struggle among your european imperial powers, their own settler columnist, and native peoples, so that is one

kind of rough balance it is achieved by the 17 20s or so in the governor of virginia recognizes that here. the governor of virginia has to steer between rock and a hard place, between indian or civil war. but also another kind of balance is being maintained, which was noted by the new york indian affairs secretary in about 1751. he said, to preserve the balance between us, that is, the british, and french, is the great ruling principle of the modern indian politics. preserving the balance is what native people are also trying to do, and he also used this phrase which was partly in a way that europeans are so good at doing, a kind of insulting complement at the same time. when he talked about the modern indian politics, he was saying, it is what these people are doing today, there

is a little bit and say this is the modern in politics, pot like to turn the phrase around and use it as a marker of historical change among native communities. these are modern 18th century native people who have come to understand what they're dealing with in terms of the balance of power between the european empires and european settlers. in that sense, we could talk about another kind of balance, native peoples trying to maintain the balance, and preserving their autonomy and political authority do not getting very complicated imperial world in which the european empires are being managed in some respects by native powers who are trying to keep the balance of power between them. so that has been the framework we have tried to develop this week. and we have also talked about how, in the middle of the 18th century, those balances all got upset,

in the events that led up to and culminated in what we call the seven years war, or was settler calling us like to call the french and indian war, that french and indian war name, reflects beautifully that the settler columnist idea, because he was absent from their? there are no settler colonists, there are actually no british. the war is a war against the native peoples, the indian, and the french, right? and it reflects in the eyes of settler colonists a hope that they are achieving the goal of getting the other empire in the native people are out of the way so they can take over the continent. and what led to the upset of the balance of power? many complicated causes but if there's one thing we want to point to it is the massive growth in several colors populations are at the early 18th century. 16 50, there is a

mere 55,000 settlers colonists in the english colonies, by 1700 that has increased by more than five times to 265,000. by the eve of the seven years wore, 1,600,000 columnist, including almost a quarter of 1 million enslaved africans, one of the things that settler colonial theory points out is that, in a sense, you replaced the legislator that others might try to mobilize with imported labor, either peoples on families, indentured servitude, soar by this period, enslaved operations. all of these people are conceiving them selves as creating an empire settler congress who are replacing the native population, or, rather erasing the native population and replacing it with this new

form of settler colonialism. and by the eve of the american revolution, two and a quarter million settler colonists, one of their important things about seeing this chart, among other, things you can get a sense of the growing british population, the growing demand for land that goes along with that, but also the growing importance of north america in a british empire that use resented in the caribbean. you can see that by the period were talking about, here the vast majority of settler columnist now live in north, america not other places in the americas. another way to conceive of this is to think in terms not just the population numbers, but land that is occupied through these periods, if you look at pearson about 16 75, the english settler colonial population is confined to a remarkably small area over the landscape, mostly along the coast and along a few rivers

into the interior. by 1725, several expansions. by the eve of the seven years war, about 1755, that british population is pushed up against the mountains, the appalachian mountains, and is poised to need to go into the interior. and if there is an origin to be upset the balance of power north america by the middle of the 18th century, it is this relentless pressure of british settler columnist for more and more land, more and more space, to put it agricultural production, to replace native people with english farmers, with german farmers, with guts irish farmers, within slaved opportune labor, and to push further and further into native territories order to achieve those goals. by the middle of

the 18th century, much of this competition has come to focus on a particular part of the landscape, which people in the 18th century called the ohio country. roughly, the areas around what is to be pittsburgh and to the states of western pennsylvania, ohio, indiana, and points adjacent. these places are where british settler columnist and british empire have their sights set for the next place in which they're going to expand. it also happens to be the place where native peoples, many of whom have already been pushed out of their homes farther east, have been migrating for generation, people like shawnee's and delaware is unheard and shiny people. all of them are main gaining -- determined to maintain access to the land it is also a

territory that the french have long claimed aspirational to be part of their empire, and so i think we have been arguing that by about 1750, native peoples in these two major empires, the british and french and the settler colonists of the britons have all come to focus on this particular region of the ohio country as the focus of all of their energies and activities in terms of their view of the future of north america, right? and those things have become utterly incompatible, after one was the same spot planned, in central columnist, the native peoples. you have to be empires, all of, them fighting among themselves over control of that space and this becomes the place with the great conflict of the seven years wars ignited. fast forwarding, making an extremely long story very short, the british empire and its british colonists briefly come to believe in 1763 that the entire

continent has been conquered, the french of being expelled, the spanish should be confined to the area west of the mississippi and british mines, both british imperial minds and british settler columnist minds, native people have not exactly been race from the landscape, but they have been conquered in this thing that british columnist like to call the french and indian war. all of the land now belongs to britain, a massive british flag planted across the expanse of north america.. that dream lasts about five seconds. it continues to be embody in our maps like this that showed the british congress in north america to seven years war, and of course a native people have other ideas and one of the results of that is the connected but decentralized set

that we conveniently long together as pontiac's wars, 1763 1760, five in which native people rose up against the british threat this territory the british claim to have conquered and certainly if nothing, else prove to them that they remain he's part of this balance of power between british columnist, the british empire and native people. what results is a kind of imbalance embodied in the british proclamation known as the proclamation of the 63, which at least in the region is aligned on the appalachian mountains and says british people must remain east of those mountains, the area in the interior, this call, as you can see on this map here, lands reserved for indians. which is

an interesting grammatical construction, because the british crown still claims that all of that land belongs to them, but the british crown is now saying were going to reserve this land for a native peoples, and the british crown has reintroduced itself as the balance of power between settler columnist in the east and native peoples in the west. now, to bring us to what it is supposed to be today's topics redrawing and we understanding the american revolutions, i think it is useful to think in terms of this reestablishment of a balance of power very briefly it's, in which the british empire sees itself as the balance between the native peoples whose lens it says it has guaranteed reserved in the interior and the columnist -- the colonists its trying to restrain the areas to the east of the mountains. so with that

in mind, let's talk about native americans and european settlers. if we think about this three way contest, it might be useful to think of the water depends is multiple wars, multiple american revolutions, all of them working out within this structure of british empire, native peoples, settler colonists. in many respects, what we have is to watch for independence, won by the settler columnist against their empire. and another, a much more complicated set of wars for independence for native, peoples trying to maintain their independence in this context of a british empire against settler colonists, right? it is not entirely clear that there war for independence is so much against the british empire as it is against the settler columnist. so, we have

two american wars for independence, won by the european settlers, won by the native americans. among the things at stake in the contest here is actually an interesting contest over who gets to call themselves americans. i don't know whether you've thought about that much before, but for most of the 17th and 18th century, when europeans, whether british or french or setter settler colonists use the word americans, they quite rightly use that term to describe indigenous peoples from north america. it is in this period that settler colonists begin to call themselves the real americans

which is a perfect example of what we are talking about as a settler colonial mindset. we are the real americans, not those people who now need to be called some other thing, or at best, native americans because they need adjective now which they did not really need before. but really, we are the real native americans, settler columnist to call themselves americans, so as teachers, it is often important to think about the words we use and why we use them, and maybe we'd better be careful about talking about the american revolution or at least think in terms of american revolution, american wars for independence, and keep in mind that native peoples and settler colonists are both engaged in american wars for independence in this period and maybe even struggle to find

another way, another word to use to describe the settler columnist other than the american turn they want to use for themselves. there is a lot of options here, perhaps, we could call them european settlers but they are not really european settlers anymore. most of these people have been here for generations, and as we have seen, they see themselves as the genuine and illegitimate occupiers of this landscape, so we often find ourselves using words like u.s. americans, united states americans, and anyone who has dealt with pushback from other parts the americas with this idea, how can you get to be americans we are not, you come up with muscles like u.s. americans, united states americans. we also like to talk about peoples of the u.s., both of those are mouthfuls so i want to throw the term here that may or may not stick, probably will not stick. i did not come up with this term myself, i believe it was

gregory nobles who teaches at george attack, maybe even as long ago is 15 or 20 years ago. the word i want to throw there is you sony in, who is a person who lives in the united states. okay, fellow usonians, what do you think about that? it is a real word. anyone over this word comes from? frank lloyd right, at the great architect, in 1939 came up with plans for what he called the usonian house a peoples house for the united states, simple architecture, the kind of house that a good usonian would live in, so let's just throw that out for a while and think about the possibility that we might want to use the word usonian, at least in this period, to describe these people who are creating the united states, yes

.. >> so, usonian, and these other terms you put out there are people of european ancestry. these terms are always -- >> needed to the same area? >> i would say it could include any one subject to the jurisdiction of the united states which would include a slave difference, free africans, all sorts of people, but the people associated with that political entity we call the united states i think could rightly be called you sony is rather than americans. they are all americans. >> what is, do you, the purpose of making all of these people under an umbrella rather than indigenous peoples, calling the people for what they are, because african people, people who were enslaved and brought here still find, it i find a very hard even identify their,

so is the purpose? >> we've been trusting all along, there is always an as on the end of these words, there are we contingent, there is always many meetings of them. it also helps to understand that during this thing that we are going to try emphasize, to call the usonian revolution, some african people, casting their lot with the united states, but far more than casting their lot for their own purposes, with the british. native peoples, some of them casting a lot with the united states, the vast majority of them were engaged in their own struggle for independence, so i stress that usonians is fundamentally the people we used to call european settler colonists who are green there are political order which is dominated by white men and dominated by a view that the united states is the legitimate owner of this continent and so in many respects we have the

usonians, as the british empire, against the native peoples, but they are all complicated configurations, shifting alliances, people operating for different purposes in different ways, right? >> i think there is a disconnect here. i feel like people are moving on, even the idea of americans, or identifying under this one set, i think it embraces individual peoples reasons for doing was about things. african people fighting with the british, or african people fine with the colonists, or native people fighting the french and indian war, it is all for reasons of being place in this particular positions, and oppressive positions, so i feel as though associating with that ultimately takes away pieces of their individual story. >> i could not agree more, but i think naturalize-ing the term

american for people who are associated with those who have won their battle to create the united states does more harm into raising those differences then trying to really distinguish the fact that there is nothing natural about these people calling themselves america or that there are united states of america is the thing we call america, and throughout all of these wars and he's revolutions, people are having to choose sides. absolutely, not all white people decide to go with the u.s.. it is not entirely, in fact, probably not a very good way of describing things that african americans who self emancipate themselves and run away from their enslaver's are necessarily doing that because they like the british. they are engaged in their own war for independence and maybe have an alliance of convenience with the british army, or at least are seeing some possibility of

allying themselves with the british. same thing with native americans, very few of them love the british empire, but they're war for independence tends to coincide with the names of the british empire. other native americans make the choice of taken along with united states and hoping that will work out. so i'm hoping we can maintain a three-way thing, here empires, settlers, indigenous people, right. and we need to be careful about assuming that settlers are all one thing, but also to give them a foreign sounding name like usonian to make them a little bit strange to us and something that has to be explained and talked about and deconstructed, and not just naturalized.. thank you very much for that, because that really helped -- i hope that helped to clarify things a bit. so, usonians, try, don't see what your student say. i tried

to use this in a book review and the editor just scratched it out, but i use it with my students all the time and some of them at least start calling themselves usonians because it is easier to say than u.s. americans and it does get to something. so, let's try out native americans and usonians ' worse for independence. i hope you're with me there are at least two american wars for independence, at least, two there are many others. there are many other people in the settler populations who have different names for what they mean by independence. there is certainly a war for independence among african americans or african peoples who see themselves as having the opportunity to achieve their independence by taking advantage of the chaos. the self emancipate. lots of wars for independence, well, again,

putting an as on the end of a word is often a very important way of thinking things through, but at least there are these native peoples and settler colonists, usonians us learning to call ourselves usonians are engaged in two parallel wars to maintain their independence or create their independence at the same time. so, that is what i mean by these two wars for independence or perhaps two sets for american boys for independence, native peoples and settler columnist are both engaged in these wars for independence at the same time, and in some respects, it all traces back to the seven years wore, the contest for the continent, a deep sense of betrayal by settler colonists who believe that the british empire has turned it back on them by denying them the fruits of the conquest of the continent, to the proclamation of 1860, three not to mention, the taxes they're imposing on them, not to mention many other

things which are central grievances of the usonian revolution, but that the contest of the seven years war echoed down into creating the children of pontiac, swore people trying to create and maintain their independence and the sense of betrayal on the part of the british settler columnist against the british empire, the three way helps us understand, redraw, rethink the period we to easily call the period of the american revolution. i have stunned the room into silence once again. two sets of war for independence. i also want to talk about reactors an interpretation for those two wars. not those kind of axes,

this kind of axes. this is so much like my college classrooms, i try to throw a joke out there and nobody laughs. there is nothing funny about any of the story, but once in a while we have to try and inject a note of irony or levity into it. what i mean by those axes are interpretations, i think we will first off talk about an access that has to do with causes of these wars for independence. we've already talk through some of that, and for both native peoples and produce donations, the causes of their wars for independence are pretty similar. we talked often about the causes of events, the second access of interpretation i want to talk about is the nature of the struggle. a lot of parallels there as well, so what do i

mean by those three things? let's focus on the usonians wars for independence first. history are used to thinking about things in two ways, we talk about long term cause and short term causes. i think we have already been through some of this in my brief remarks earlier today. the long term cars is the massive growth in british settler colonization at the 18th century. also, we can talk about the u.s. war for independence, that settle economists have created, the legislature is that sense of governance elves, they're developing sense of that since the day on the land and that they govern themselves, that this really is there america. those are long term developments that have developed over more than a century of english colonization

in north america. the short term causes, i think many historians would argue and i just argued a few minutes ago, traced back to the seven years war, and the events of the 17 fifties and 17 sixties and a transformation of the british empire and the relationship between empires, settlers and columnist come after that war, so we know what the axis of interpretation of causes our, and for any of the multiple peoples you're talking about, i'm going to place the sense of what is causing them to act along either a long term set of grievances, a long term center developments, or very short term kinds of things. for them, it may not be a proclamation of 1763. it may be the fact that some local landlords kick you off your lands and this is your opportunity to get back. so, thing in terms of causation as

a spectrum or an access might help us place various peoples and their decisions along the way and i want to also stressed that i think we can say it is exactly the same set of long or short term causes, at least long term causes, and collective short term causes, that lead to native americans wars for independence, they as well are reacting to the large expansion of british settler colonization. they are trying to defend their land against the english. they as well reacting to the events of the 17 fifties in 17 sixties and the seven years who wore, the same long term causes, producing multiple difference, but certainly two different sets of american wars for independence. so, what do i mean by the nature of the struggle? here, let's go back to some classic ways that

historians of white america have tried to explain the american revolution. a famous phrase by the historian carlo dispatcher in his immensely boring book but influential one written in 1909 called the history of the political parties in the province of new york, which said this. the american revolution was part of the general, movements the contest for home rule and independents and the democratization of american politics and society. in these movements, the latter was fundamental, and began before the contest for home rule and was not completed till after the achievement of independence. he famously said, there are two questions about equally prominent, the first question of home rule, the question -- the second question, who should rule at home. home, rule who should rule at home? it is a war for independence, yes, but for carl backer, and

for most of us is history -- history teachers and historians, the farmer interesting question, is once you achieve home rule, who gets to roll at home? that is the real revolution. who within the british settler population is going to be the people who will rule. a kind of new way of thinking about political arrangements might be emerging, or is it is the same old thing? meet the new, boston was the old boss? the far interesting struggle is often between different groups over who should rule at home rather than the question of home rule. so, this is what i mean by the nature of the struggle, the spectrum of home rule on the one hand and who should rule at home on the other. are you following me? right, again, the more interesting revolution is

always the one about who should rule at home, not the slightly more easy to answer a question of home rule. once we achieve independence, what does that mean? who will set the terms with a new political order. who is going to roll at home? who's gonna be making decisions? and there, as, well lots of people are making individual choices about what they're trying to achieve and what the nature of that new home rule is going to be. so, we are at the third access, the object of the struggle. here, i want to go to another early 20th century, late 19th century historian, one who i would never otherwise quote and suggest that you read. sometimes, a racist historian is under some truth, or at least some somewhat that you might not want to hear. when i talking about? they had a

roosevelt, who among many other things, of course, was a historian. he wrote this great multi volume work called the winning of the west, a similar colonial title if there ever was one, and he is well talked about two american revolutions, or, we would say, to usonian revolutions. the revolution is of twofold character, he, said making of american struggle of independence in the east in the west, a war of conquest, or the right to self on behalf of people the right of settling the fertile regions beyond the alligators. he has already erase native people, except that he has to explain that in fact, you do have to fight native people to get into that vacant and fertile region in the rest of the appalachians,

right? and here is what really gets races but reveal something important. the most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with averages, the most terrible and inhumane. the root, fear settler who drive savidge from the land leaves all mankind a debt to him, it is a uncomfortable importance that americans in siberia should pass out of the hands of the aboriginal owners and become the heritage of the laces. again, he saying it in most stark terms. this is all about white people claiming land that belongs to them. >> why not use the term imperialist? because ultimately, it is about who will be the imperial power in this particular place. >> i would argue the settlers want to be the imperial power

and a struggle to make them in, charge not great britain. >> but great britain is also imperialist. >> absolutely. >> so, why not invoke that language? why not evoke the ideas of this imperialist, racist -- what is wrong with that? >> there's nothing wrong with that except that we have the settlers battling the existing appear ill power to replace them with another imperial power, and because, again back to the struggle, whether british empire has been halting lee and racist way trying to do is to mediate between the native people, whose lands they have reserved from settlers, and the settler colonists, right? so this is a settler columnist perspective, who don't come to see themselves as the great imperial civilizing

power, right? as opposed to the navy plan b empire that at least turned up to protect and people it's a rather subtle economies. >> it's also reflect in the fact of the united states entered the international imperious game later because they were doing the imperialism internally. >> internally is such a usonian word. native peoples would not say this was a struggle that was internally, right? the imperial contests is for control the continent which is what, again, theater roosevelt got it when he said in the most stark and revealing terms, there is two revolutions going on, what is a struggle for independence, the others war of conquest. so, that is what i mean about three axes of

interpretation for the usonian revolution. we can point to the long and short term process and we can think of a right of situation ourselves along that spectrum. we can talk about this nature of the struggle between who should rule at home and home rule. it might be interesting, if you want to think about individual stories, how you would place them in the graph of what their position is on home rule as opposed to who should rule at home, whether that comes out of a short term set of circumstances or long term development culturally, right, and then to make it three dimensional, this other thing about the spectrum between the war for independence and the war of conquest. we might want to replace those words with liberty inland. this land is the objective much of this controversy. the object of the

struggle is who's going to control the land, and whose definition of what it means to be liberty and free and independent is going to prevail, and here as well, it is not as simple as settler columnist replacing indigenous people, who should rule it home question comes in there, which particular settler columnist are going to control this land that we are struggling over? yes. apparently i can't, figure. >> don't go off memory, i wonder if the object of the struggle also contains within a sort of bifurcation of the subject because not grievous quote, from theodore roosevelt, the advancement of civilized

man is predicated on -- so even within that period of that he's putting out, there is our vision. >> why put all these things spectrum, which is a different way of saying there is contingents involved and that these things, while they may appear to be ways of using a three part model to oversimplify what is going, on they actually allow us to think in very complicated ways about what this means and to think through what somebody like they are roosevelt saying and to think through what someone like john dickinson is saying, and through something like what thomas jefferson is saying. like where are these factors figuring in to the view of what they're trying to create in the u.s. in this period? >> as he had these three axes

are used in terms of the three groups were talking, about european empires, native peoples and settlers, but this is -- if we look at just one of, them let's a settler call on us, couldn't this also be their narrative in the sense that, you know, every history book that i've read it does not take this kind of consideration that were taken in this class, you know, our story is independents to conquest, 1776, 1890. so instead of being a spectrum, is just a continuous line. certainly connective line. >> my point b that independence and conquest always go together. it is not from independence to congress. it is that the definition of

independence for settler colonists is conquest. >> i would agree to, and i think our history books have celebrated that because we say, fantastic, 1776, we kicked out the british and we achieved independence and by 1890 we've conquered the west. >> two ways of complicating that, we, who is this we, usonians, kicked at the british and in their own mind, kicked out the indians, in 1776, well, 1783, not to put too fine a point on, it right? and that process continues down to the 18 nineties, it continues on the global stage from that time forward, perhaps continues right through the period of manifest destiny in which you sony and leaders are always

having their eyes on both native peoples and the british empire, right, the other way of complicating this is to keep telling the story there is two sets of revolutions going on and that for native people as well, the same sort of long term causes is producing the same kind of nature of the struggle and produce in the same kind of struggle over liberty independence, and ultimately those two revolutions can't coexist, because they're fundamentally products the same historical circumstances but ultimately incompatible in their goals because one person is to get that land and the other people need to lose it. >> could you give me a date or a thought on the idea of the indians are completely conquered, early 1890, was --

>> the idea, or the historical, reality right? >> the reality. >> i would hope historical reality is never, although certainly the balance of power ships and major ways. >> in terms of when the united states government, the president could sit down and say, it's time to change policy, the warring period, the conflict period of military entanglement. >> help us out. >> 18, 90 the u.s. census says that the frontier is closed.. >> here's what i would say, that is why i distinguish when

the idea and the historical reality. the struggle reality is i was complicated and we all know that while the settler colonial political regime becomes triumphant over time, that native people themselves or not really conquered, that is an ideological construct. but there are various points when you can say, both imperial and settler columnist fantasies think they have actually done the job, and one of those points were 1763. the british thought they had conquered the empire and then suddenly have a war on their hands from native people who see things quite differently. another point where that happens is about 1783, when the united states comes to the same erroneous conclusion. all of us territory now belongs to us because we have the treaty of paris it says it does, not surprisingly, the united states finds itself with a major set of wars on its hands by native people who are

repelling against -- or maybe even rebellion is not the best word because that implies some sort of sense of that regime being legitimate, or simply making war against an expensive power claiming its territory. good point to be many points, could be the end object sony, removal we could point 1890, we could point of the termination policies of the 19, fifties right? so, here, are again, settler colors are all we try to convince themselves they really do control things and the wind really does belong to them, and that america is the u.s.. i wonder if think about american history is that that i was always a challenge concept. we have to talk about why people embraces interpretations.

>> i'm interested in your response, that roosevelt, such an impactful thing, it almost seems to be like the usonians adopting the imperial narrative, taking it over, so the empire doesn't have a narrative anymore because they've lost it to the usonians who have kind of turned it into something that they own now. that makes sense? >> john adams famously asked the question several times in his old age what we mean by the american revolution. this was absolutely not the answer that he would come up with, but i might say the answer to john adams question is just what you said, how did usonians come to

think they are a great imperial power and in fact erased empires and 80 people from their ideological landscape? and that is vastly oversimplified, not everybody sees it that way but that is a narrative about this period, right? and about much of u.s. history.. all right, very briefly i want to talk about how we might begin to think about these same reacts model, apply to native peoples. much of it is very clear, i think already, right? same basic historical causes, same basic historical events are leading to native people having to engage in their series a voice for independence at the same times that settler columnist for doing it, right? always with three part pretty marketed empire being up there but during the period of these boys for independence, certainly the french and spanish empires get

back involved with that odd alliance between the french empire and the settler colonists and the spanish i was trying to figure out how they can get back in the game somehow as well, right? but, in any event, certainly the same short term causes, the object of the struggle is in many respects also pretty obvious. everybody is fighting over liberty and independence, and that is the one that is incompatible. someone is going to win that war for independence and someone's going to lose it, except that of course nobody ever clearly wins and loses because native people continue to control independence over the land elsewhere, and even within the regime the united states claims, right? but i also want to think about how we might apply this idea of home rule, it's a native american revolutions, because it is a period of great political change among native peoples, sandwiches familiar to

us and some which is not, i think many of us know that the charities, for instance, during the period of the long american revolution, are reinventing the government, they are establishing courts, they are changing the gender relations, ultimately by the 18 twenties they have come up with a written constitution, all of which is interesting to put in parallel with what usonians are doing, right now articles of confederation, to redefining what republicanism means, to create the united states, going through all sorts of questions over not just who should rule it home but how should we roll at home, right? it is a relatively familiar story, i hope, that we could at least point of the cherokee people and, say they are having that same debate over who should rule at home, how should they roll at home, how are we going to recreate a political system in this new world of trying to preserve our independence? as

maybe a slightly last familiar story, the haudenosaunee or your co-op will have their own civil war in many respects around this period and have to reinvent themselves as the six nations of the haudenosaunee in the late 19th -- late 18th, early 19th century, doing though in various locations and most profoundly in what we today call canada. again, it is perhaps useful to think about that as a haudenosaunee parallel from moving from the articles of confederation to the u.s. constitution, reinventing their political system after a very divisive civil war which is what the usonians went through as well, and i think we can point to a lot of different parallel trends of development throughout north america, but there is another thing with the

struggle, and this goes back to the period of the war called pontiac's. during that, period native american and spiritual leaders began to really developed the idea that all native peoples have to unite in a common cause against a common enemy, whether that is the british empire or the settler colonists. that was very controversial in 1763. that debate continues throughout the period be called awards for independence, as various native leaders are trying to launch confederacy, is get native groups get together and put aside their common enmities, namely, against a common enemy. it is always controversial, sets up attention which is still there today in native history between people who i identify with pain indian is among those who identify was tribalism and also other inspectors where people hearing different opinions at the same

time indifferent contacts, in different ways, so, just like, there is that famous ben franklin cartoon, uniter di, the snake that is divided up into different kinds of colonies, again, we can see native people in this period making the same argument, maybe even with the same metaphor, unite or die, right? and that the struggle there is also over who should rule at, home in the struggle for independence. so i hope it might be at least useful to think once in a while about these questions, if we have a kind of way of thinking about american war for independence, we could also talk about a variety of those wars and complicate our narratives about how that works, and get our students to think about a genuinely much more comprehensive and multi field way of thinking about this period. so, again, for native

people as well, rebecca's question -- it would never have occurred to call back or that this would apply to navy americans but i think it is just as true for native peoples throughout this people as it is for usonians, that there is a dual struggle between home rule and who should rule at home. that is one way to think about the native american history of this period, as we think about it of american people trying to conduct their washer independence, it also invariably involves a question of who should rule at home and why and how. okay, finally, we really want to collapse our three axes of interpretation into one? and for everyone in this period, land is the key to

liberty, and it really is finally putting together backer and roosevelt, we have a set of conflict over the question of how does one achieve liberty through control of the land, and the consequent struggle for the continent involve struggles over who is going to become a free people, independent, land and liberty all go together. and to get back to your point earlier, there is a narrative that we would hear, right? daniel boone with his cuban skin cap fighting for liberty by conquering the land, right? but let's think about that that's something that goes or multiple directions, that involves all these different kinds of contest we are talking about, and that also involves very practical ways in which the control of land is the key to the political regimes the

people are creating. here is a picture we've all seen in our textbooks. the northwest ordinance. it lays out this nice greeted landscape, in where? ohio country, the place people have been fighting over for generations or two. i always like to point out to my students, we know now why midwesterners are square. i'm looking at you, kid. but how many times do we think about this, what is so crucial in our story, didn't know how often we talk with the north ordinance anymore, i don't know how you teach about, it what an amazing assertion of settler colonial ideology in the northwest ordinance, we can just completely rearrange the

landscape, put it in nice, square townships and pretend that native people are there. the articles of confederation is often described as the greatest achievement in this agreement and among the various states to see that there were claims in the united states as a whole and to see them under the terms of the northwest ordinance away which will be in the new states and organize several populations through orderly processes of having people on sewer lots of land. that very act that is so crucial to the creation of the united states is an aggressive colonial set assertion over this territory and it all takes place before they tried have

treaties to gain that land. the northwest ordinance exist and they have possession of that landscape under these definitions. not just that land but it's crucial to the finances or the vision of the finances in the united states which has for how they're going to create stability in political order and solve the question of who should own at all. >> that's what they wanted the british to do. >> exactly. they tried to do it anyway. this is what many houstonians knew in 1763 that which had happened after the seven years war. one of the big grievances on this empire that they are prevented from doing

this at least temporarily. richard henri lee on the west ordinance of the situation was soon to be discharged of which he meant was getting out from under our war debts and to sell this western land to settlers and generate income from it and solve our financial problems and this is another thing that goes back to the british empire that had financial problems with that's for more and they found themselves in the same situation and at least for fantasy of acquiring this western land and selling it in a way which fighting will be generated and he solved the financial problems and they've been looking into this in recent years and never worked out the way richard henry the envisioned it. it was part of the global thinking so the

western land claims it puts a stress on claims and the northwest ordinance are the creation of the united states in many states and people are creating that system which is crucial to the united states and for settling its financial problems. we can see states doing this so when you think about perhaps slightly different than optimistic terms than what was created he raising native people from the landscape and facing the nature of the future of the united states on that land and reenvision it as square townships or for good smithsonian folks is land with is justly is. but if we were to

spend hours which we won't be looking at a timeline and figure out when they had to treaties with people on this land which happens for the most part after it is been passed and the land has been envisioned as part of the united states. as we think about other abstract maps and removal of the in sessions of these lands all of this is central to the goals of the revolution i would argue. the american revolution about anything is about control and not just of their own rule but moreover the land and the continental interior. the states are doing the same thing in pennsylvania and in 1784 85 pennsylvania expropriating from native people which is on treaties and a vast area in the

corner of the state and an area that john davidson who was president of the council of pennsylvania but described as was in the acknowledged boundaries and within the acknowledged boundaries of the state like he did here and here if the vision of the pack student boys what the exclusion of people in pennsylvania which achieved and 1785 at least one theory was appropriated from native americans as the vast majority that are excluded from that territory and not just from that territory in particular but the vision is that's exactly the same thing we're talking about here and pennsylvania government provided that into two sets and

lands and the depreciation lands. all sounds very bureaucratic. this was a way to pay off revolutionary war soldiers. that dark blue area is going to be set aside as lands to be donated to settlers, yes, but the soldiers in lieu of their back pay, and they came up with a system in which veterans were given certificates that say it is worth that much, land that much land another nation area, as happens, settles by opposite and soldiers never really settler on it but that is again, we talk about state settling their financial affairs through the acquisition of native lands, they've been paying off debts to their soldiers through the land that they just

expropriated from native people. that appreciation lands, can you figure out what that might mean in this context?. money is not worth the continental and all that kind of stuff. >> so, they use the proceeds to pay off the war, dead the monetary war that? >> they're doing some of that two with the depreciation lies to make up for the fact that soldiers have been paid depreciated currency. they will get land grants there as well to make up to the fact that the money they were paid is no good. all right, so, again, the financial implications of this four states we are just beginning to understand, i think, as historians, and it is as complicated as it always is but at least there is a vision that acquiring native lands is going to not just be the way in which settlers lovers civilized continent, but also the way in which states will get out from under their crippling debt and financial problems in this period. yes?

>> when do these boundaries become defined? >> there they are. >> 1789 complete. >> that is the purchase of the era triangle, when they said whoops, we have no access to the great lakes, so they had to get the civil triangle of land get access to the great lakes but the real key is 1784 and 70 85 where a third of what is today pennsylvania has acquired. >> isn't who rules at home dependent on making sure that this land go to the people that fought before them? because if they don't give them that land, their back into our non revolution. >> exactly, again, think through who should rule at, home what does this mean, and what does it mean that most of this land was actually brought

up by the hands of british speculators and not soldiers, who are supposed to be rewarded, although i guess they got something for, it they saw the certificate to a speculator at some point. yes, a perfect point there that this whole thing goes back to the question of who should roll at home, who will control the distribution of these lands, who is going to profit from making the states profit from land, right? one last way to think about this comes from new york and the work of allen taylor. this is what we continue to call haudenosaunee territory, but this massive expropriation of iroquois territory after the u.s. revolution, it is important and new york, remember, or no, maybe do not remember this, treated most of this land, again, it made some

sense in their minds, as land conquered from the hush one people because the haudenosaunee that's out of the british and be forced over that territory, but one of the haudenosaunee nations why not being treated like the other members of the hush one, their land is expropriated as well by the new york state government, which is selling off that land to pay its own debts, and here is a chart which shows just how much of revenue is coming in from settler calling us, through the period act the american revolution, particularly in 70 95,, the generating of surplus of 114,799 dollars and 23 cents from selling this land to their

own colonists. that was a lot of money in 1795, right? and i think if you look through many of the state government in this period, the degree to which land expropriated for native americans as part of the american revolutionary process becomes crucial to the finances of these states, we have certainly known throughout u.s. history how important this western lands are finances and to the structure of the united states government throughout this period. so, we are back to the question of land and liberty and what that means, and i hope that it's useful to be thinking in terms of these two sets of american revolutions, or american was for independence and seeing both of them as mapped out on three spectrums, different ways of thinking about what those was for independence rowboat. thank, you everybody.

(applause)