Government . Why should we think of the American Revolution as a revolution rather than simply a war for independence . So we talked about, weve talked about this in various frame works. Weve talked about whether the revolution altered the social structure of the states that were involved in the revolution, and on the last time we met we talked about the impact of the revolution on africanamericans and on the institution of slavery. We saw that, in that case, the legacy was quite mixed, right . The revolution set the institution of slavery on the path to destruction in the northern states, but was instrumental and kind of deepening and strengthening the institution in the southern states. Today i want to talk about two topics that are closely interrelated, and that are really two sides of the same coin. I want to talk today about how the revolution affected native americans and how the revolution created a new system for thinking about making western lands widely available to ordinary people. Those are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, the revolution initiated a new kind of commitment to pretty rapid westward territorial expansion in a widely democratic system of land holding. Land ownership, which was a really powerful engine of Economic Opportunity and democracy for a lot of ordinary white men and women and their families. But it also implied a pretty exploitive approach to native americans. So to say they are two sides of the same coin, and to begin thinking about this, just in an abstract sense, there were people involved in the American Revolution and foremost among them, Thomas Jefferson, who thought a great deal about this problem. Who believed that one of the most revolutionary aspects of the revolution ought to be making land more widely available to ordinary people on relatively easy terms. And this constituted a fundamental revolution in all european ways of thinking about the availability of land. Because in the old british system, in the old english system, land was a byproduct of aristocratic privilege and land holding was something that flowed from the top of society downward. In england, the land was owned by a relatively small number of people who owned a lot of it and they made it available on their own terms through rental agreements, you know, if you think about the feud dal system, this is a system where tenants farm the lands of great lords and its a system that really, where Land Ownership and the power associated with it all resides at the top of society, and that principle was woven into the fabric of colonization, because if you think about how lands became available until colonies, the biggest colonies began with proprietary ownership. If you think about a colony like pennsylvania the first principle of pennsylvania is the king gives all the land to william penn and tells him he can do whatever he wants with it. This is an offshoot of that same aristocratic model where land starts at the top and is distributed downward according to whatever principles the powerful people who control it want to employ. We talked last week about the fact that far from seeing that stuff die away, we talked about the idea of a feudal revival. There were a lot of absentee landowners that had control of a lot of land and they were beginning to assert their privileges more strongly. They were collecting rents in a way they couldnt in an earlier period so this idea of kind of land being tied to privilege, the privilege of a small number of powerful men, just foundational. Not only in English Society but to the way colonies were organized, and for jefferson, this was one of the most important things that needed to be overturned. We talked about his attack on trying to break up the greatest states of the most powerful family. This is kind of a parallel idea. One of jeffersons cornerstone principles is the idea that the best social foundation for a republican government was to have a large number of yeoman farmers who owned rel small, simple amounts of land in fee simple. Meaning they did not pay rent to landlords. They held the land on their own terms. So this idea of a society, a republic of yeoman farmers was one of the foundational principles that many people, especially including jefferson, wanted to work pretty hard to implement after the American Revolution. The problem is, of course, making abundant amounts of land widely available on cheap terms means you have to control the land in the first place, and this was not that simple. Because, of course, the land that the United States aspired to control and redistribute were lands that were occupied by native American Populations, with their own claims, with their own sense of legitimacy, and in the process of trying to enact this theoretical revolution and the availability of land, what we see is the United States took a very exploitive approach to its relationship with native peoples throughout eastern north america. Thats a process that began in the revolution itself, and in order to kind of focus our discussion of this issue, i want to focus on the ohio country and ohio indians. There were indian populations up and down the eastern seaboard in the appalachian west and there were a lot of different stories associated with these groups, but for our purposes, just to focus on one of these groups i want to focus on the ohio country, which weve already talked about, because the ohio valley was the focus of lord dunmores war in 1774. Weve already talked about european aspirations to control the ohio country and dunmores effort basically to claim kentucky, whats now kentucky, from the shawnees through his victory in dunmores war. Its kind of an interesting and complicated population because in the early 18th century, the ohio valley was largely de populated for complicated historical reasons. In decades before the American Revolution, it was being repopulated by a pretty large and Diverse Group of indians that were coming both from the east, from pennsylvania and new jersey and new york, and coming from the north and the west. So from the east, groups that were basically being displaced by the growth of pennsylvania, new jersey, and new york, with three populations in particular, the delawares and shawnese, were migrating west out of pennsylvania and new jersey, and the western youre iroguoia, the name they were given in the ohio country, these groups were forming in many cases shared communities. The most important communities in the ohio valley were often multiple ethnic communities, and they were moving into the ohio valley both to move away from the immediate pressures of the growth of colonial settlement and also because the ohio valley was a really good place to hunt and trade. Pennsylvania traders started traveling in the ohio valley. As they moved in pennsylvania traders followed them and they had a pretty robust set of Economic Opportunities in the 1740s and 1750s and 1760s, so you have these groups moving in from the east. At the same time, again, in response to the Economic Opportunity created by traders from pennsylvania, a pretty wide array of groups from the north and west that were moving out of the french sphere and into british sphere, including others, a relatively diverse population of native groups. And so the main thing i want you to understand, when we talk about the ohio indians were talking about a diverse array of peoples that had not functioned together, they were not a coherent political unit. They had not operated together for a very long time at the time of the revolution, and the revolution forced them to make new kinds of collective choices in response to the pressures of that war. They had relied on a pattern of trade with pennsylvania, in aligns with both pennsylvania and really with each other for a number of years without really having further coalesced as any kind of political unit. And then this was the group, of course, that was directly attacked by virginia militia in dunmores war in 1774, particularly the shawnese, who dunmore thought was the most hostile of these groups, and the shawnese were engaged, and that was one battle at Point Pleasant in 1774. You remember, that dunmores war established the principle, at least in the minds of virginians that kentucky was now open to settlement. So one of the oddities of the American Revolution is that, in the spring and summer of 1775, this is at the same time that the shot heard around the world was fired at lexington, at concord, rather, battle of lexington and concord, battle of bunker hill. At the same time, all of that stuff was going on in new england, in central kentucky parties of virginians were moving into this newly claimed land, in 1775, and without permission from the crown, without any legitimate authority from above, but having participated in dunmores war in 1774, dozens, hundreds of people began to occupy central kentucky in the spring and summer of 1775. This is a map that just, i just want to take a minute to look at, so im sure that you have a vision of what were talking about. Im talking about the ohio country, and this is actually a map that depicts battles during and after the American Revolution, but when we talk about the ohio country im basically talking about this area mostly north of the ohio river. Heres where the three rivers come together at fort pitt, to define the head waters of the ohio. This is the ohio country, and then kentucky the territory that people were beginning to occupy in 1775 and 1776, is down here. You can see some of these early stations. Books borrow is one of the early kentucky stations. This became the leading edge of Anglo American settlement even before there was an American Revolutionary war. This is something, its a process thats moving forward independent of the revolution, yet it intersects and it fundamentally changes the fortunes of these people who will moving west, because, under the auspices of the crown they were criminals. They were beyond the proclamation line of 1763. What they were doing was illegal. But under, you know, in the context of the American Revolution, as the Second Continental Congress was sitting, as revolutionary legislators were taking over in the states, it was possible for them to make new claims to legitimacy and thats exactly what these kentucky settlers did. In the course of the American Revolution, these kentucky settlers made common cause with the United States. And with the revolutionary governments that managed them. And they made very specific pleas about the legitimacy of their occupation and settlement. They specifically talked about the fact that the king had limited, had restricted access to these western lands, but that they had fought and bled for these lands at the battle of Point Pleasant. They had a legitimate and meaning plan to these lands and moreover, they were also interested in liberty and they thought what the United States was talking about was pretty great and they wanted to be part of it and they said the United States would be foolish to miss the opportunity to incorporate such skilled rifleman into their ranks. They petitioned their congress and said, if you support us out here well fight for you and keep the native peoples off of your backs. So they made the case that in addition to the fact that they adhered to the same principles of liberty that the United States did, they also made a strategic argument, that they could be very useful allies, and that was an argument that got traction. It got traction with the new revolutionary state of virginia which began arming and supporting their little fort. The communities that were settled all took a form of Something Like this where cabins were built and a circle with palisades so the community became kind of a makeshift fort because these guys recognized from the beginning that they were operating in territory where they would be regarded as hostile invaders, and it was incumbent upon them to defend themselves against both native americans that might not want them there, and also, as the war progressed against, you know, the pressures of british arms as well, one of the key people involved, let me ask you this. When you think of daniel boone, do you think of him as a person from the American Revolution. Hes familiar, everyone knows who he was. Great american frontiersman, right . In the era of Davey Crockett but its weird because daniel boone and Davey Crockett are generations apart. Davey crockett was at the lal know. Date in time, when was the battle of the lal know. 1840s. Were talking about 1775. This is when, this is when Daniel Boones most single most famous act of pioneering took place. He led a party of settlers in the wake of dunmores war through the cumberland gap. The town founded in 1775. So its weird to think of daniel in boone as a revolutionary war hero. His most famous act occurred before the United States even existed. Its fascinating that we dont you know, in our popular imagination we dont place him in time here. We dont think of the American Revolution as a pioneering era but its the first pioneering era and the first intrepid western explores occupiers, you know, swung into action in the revolution and kentucky. Ill say more about daniel boone in minute but hold that thought and just to kind of talk quickly about the war experience in central kentucky. The various communities of central kentucky petitioned both the Virginia Legislature and the Continental Congress for support, and they received that support the Virginia House of delegates, first of all, extended its jurisdiction across all of whats now kentucky. It created a great big new western county so that those new communities in central kentucky would have, you know, kind of a and it started sending regular supplies of powder and lead, so that these settlements could defend themselves. The Continental Congress also responded favorably to these petitions. Beginning in july of 1776, the andinental congress manned supplied three new forts on the for the to protect and support these new kentucky settlements. During the fall and winter of 1776, it sent two tons of powder, four tons of lead, boats to carry 1,500 men and food to support 2,000 people for six months. Thats a fair amount of war material that the Continental Congress was providing to kentucky at a very early stage. Then when conditions deteriorated in the following spring, congress sent a thousand rifles and another ton of lead, so from the beginning of the war effort these small embattled kentucky communities were fortunate to receive the support of revolutionary governments both at the state level and at the national level. The ohio indians, meanwhile, were in a difficult position. They were somewhat divided in terms of a sense of their loyalties. The article that i asked you to read for today talked a little bit about the ohio indians and their decisions, their loyalties, the ohio indians had had a fairly long connection by 1776 to the British Empire but they also had a fairly long connection to the pennsylvania traders, so they had preexisting relationships with both the british and the americans that could have like lead them in either direction. Initially, both governments hoped that they would remain neutral, and u. S. Leaders pleaded with them to just stay out of the revolution. Told them it was an internal spat but it became clear quickly that in fact, the ups was the United States was putting a lot of new pressure on their territory, and so gradually, by about 1777, a Large Coalition of ohio indians had decided that their interests lay with the British Empire. With the efforts of the british to defeat the americans and they began fighting against the kentucky settlements with british support, and so from 1777 on, most of the ohio indians found themselves aligned with the british. Even though you know from that article we read a little earlier in the semester about white eyes in the delawares, there was an earlier period where white eyes and large factions of delawares thought their best bet was to align themselves with the United States. The kentucky settlements helped to change that dynamic for them. The fighting ended in 1781 but 1783ar was concluded in with the treaty of paris. One of the wellknown facts about this treaty, in this document that defined the peace between Great Britain and the United States, no mention was made of britains native american allies. They just simply the native American Population of north america is simply not a subject of the treaty of paris of 1783. This meant that the United States could interpret the significance of this treaty for native peoples any way that it wanted to, and the United States chose to interpret the treaty of paris where britain basically says we lost the war, the United States interpreted this treaty to extend to britains native allies and, in fact, to all the native peoples in the near east, whether they were aligned with Great Britain, neutral, or whether they weral lined with the United States. In the case of some indians, for example, it didnt help them at all in the postwar period that they had been an ally of the u. S. During the war. And so the logic of victory in the revolution for the United States meant that not only had Great Britain been defeated but all the native peoples of the near Eastern Region of the transappalachian had been defeated by extension. Indians did not accept this premise. The ohio indians had never been defeated them in the course of the American Revolution. They were still in a pretty strong position in 1783. Kentucky was still starting to grow a lot favorite but it was still embattled, and they simply did not accept the logic that the u. S. Applied to the treaty of paris. So at the end of the war, everything was unclear. In terms of relations between the u. S. And the ohio indians, in the sense, it was a similar situation. The u. S. Relation with indian groups throughout the transappalachian west. I want to pause at this point and talk a little bit about daniel boone because placing him in kentucky in 1775 is a little bit surprising. If you dont know a lot about him. I want to talk for a minute about how daniel boone first became famous, because he became a famous figure right after the revolutionary war. He became famous as a result of the publication of this text. Johns discovery and settlement of kentucky. John was a land speculator and promoter who was interested in encouraging the rapid occupation of kentucky. In the year after the signing of the treaty of paris he published this book on the discovery and settlement of kentucky. Just kind of interesting. It narrates the story of the occupation of kentucky, and its experiences and the revolution and it includes an appendix, entitled the adventures of colonel daniel boone containing a narrative of the wars in kentucky and it included this little biographical appendix, including this illustration that shows daniel boone with his rifle and his hunting dog. The earliest depiction of boone, and the purpose of this, well, the purpose of the pamphlet was to promote settlement in kentucky and the purpose of the appendix that talked about daniel boone was to describe his heroism and harrowing experience of the war and also distress that those experiences were now over. Oone became the First American pioneer hero. And his fame took off rather quickly. He became famous even in his own lifetime. This is the first portrait painted of boone. This was painted late in his life by a man named chester harding. Its a wellknown image of boone later in life. There is another early unattributed painting de picketing him. It is interesting to look at the clothing in these portraits. What strikes you about this one . What do you see . What is he wearing . He is wearing a lot of furs, in the fur trading areas rather than just being settled in the east, hes wearing a lot of leather, carrying a rifle, he looks like hes armed too go out and take on the frontier rather than in the portrait where he looks like more of a gentleman, scholar type of individual. You see the fur trim in this suit of clothes. You can also see the leather leggings and the coat. The coat is stitched together. This is obviously not factory made clothing. You can also see his trademark cap already in his hand, as well as hunting equipment. Hes got a powderhorn around his shoulder and rifle. This portrait does seem, it depicts him more depiction begins to take on some of the familiar trappings kind ofl boone as a mythic figure in American Culture where the collared shirt wool jacketket we saw in the previous portrait has been replaced by a buckskin jacket. It is unclear what kind of shirt he is wearing but it is not a fancy one. The most famous depiction of daniel boone in the 19th century is this painting that was done in the 1850s. The artist is one of the great painters of the 19th century. If you are not familiar with his work, i recommend checking it out. He did a lot of interesting stuff. This is one of his most famous paintings, daniel boone escorting settlers through the cumberland gap. That depicting something happened four generations earlier. This is a much later painting. Thisstrikes you about depiction of daniel boone . And of the party he was leading . What do you see here . Choosing to portray the party coming out of the shadow and into the light and answering new land. Ofthe end it was still more the new, unexplored. An era. Nning of that is really well said. Coming out of darkness and into the light. Wildernessangerous these people are traversing. See by the threatening weather. Dark just by how everything is. See the swordsman i assume that is a sword, fending off people. What else . The woman on the horse is reminiscent of the virgin mary, which would suggest the divine is smiling down on them. Figure is clearly echoing traditional artistic depictions of mary, the virgin mary. Providence atvine work in this, for sure. I have a different interpretation and i first looked at this part looked at this. Be a crop. He could be driving livestock forward. That is true. I am not sure which it is. They are coming through this shadowy valley. Providence. It does make you think of the 23rd psalm. . Hat about boone can clearly see the perspective of the artist in this and how it seems like the party is the saving grace. They are going to save kentucky and make it so much better. They dont seem to be struggling. It seems like we are going to come do this, no problem. That is a good. They are surrounded by dangers but they dont seem they seem to be apart from the dangers and bringing a new kind of civilized existence into the wilderness. What about daniel boone himself . What would you say about the way he is depicted . He is depicted as an ordinary man. Ordinary . My interpretation of that is see his trying to lead regular, normal American People into the west. Thes a place for people of United States to go west and head into this brave new world and any man can do it. Officer, some military some wealthy person leading an expedition. It is normal men exploring a new world. Emphasis on the ordinariness of this party. Wearing a leather suit that is appropriate to picture him in. They have transformed it into a he looksle looking almost like a mental class gentleman middle class gentleman. A way he has been dressed up from those earlier depictions. Interesting and important painting and one that really captures the sensibilities in mid19th Century America about the enterprise. The whole idea that american westward expansion is about bringing civilization to the wilderness. This is another painting that i cannot find a description for, what i think it is an interesting variation on the thinkm depiction, and i it is characteristic of mid to late 20th century values associated with the same process. Int strikes you here contrast . How does this painting differ from the other in depicting the westwarde of expansion . In the first picture the light is shining on boone, and on here the light is shining on everyone. Not just the guy in front. It is a more democratic depiction of the group. What about the natural setting . It looks easier on them than in first painting. Easier, it is a cathedral of nature. It seems to capture a lot of 19th century sensibilities about the westward enterprise and 20th century sensibilities about the benign glories of nature. There are no benign glories in the income painting. It is interesting to think why boone is misplaced in our imaginations. Withe tend to confuse them the Davy Crockett era. This mighttheory and not relate your generation but it relates to mine. When i was a kid, i confused daniel boone and Davy Crockett because someone played them both and walt disney tv shows. Almost exactly the same costume for both roles. That is what i blame my confusion on. I think more fundamentally, we dont think about the era of the ofolution as being an era westward expansion. In the experience of the early kentucky settlements, the American Revolution legitimizes westward expansion, and unbridled form of westward expansion for the first time in American History. Printeda map that was in the 1784 book about the discovery and settlement of kentucky. What strikes you about this image . If you were, i dont know, jersey andd in new contemplating the possibility of moving to kentucky, what would this image tell you of what you could expect in kentucky . [indiscernible] it looks like open land. If you look carefully, you will see some early settlements. There is a lot of open space. What else . Like there is me a lot of detail on the River Networks but there is not a lot of detail on a lot else. It tells me they dont really know what is out there. The government owns and controls the land, but they do not know what is out there anything else anymore else than anybody else. I dont know what im getting into by purchasing land. There are not a lot of political demarcations. Most isould emphasize if you are a farmer, what you want is well watered, fertile land. Seemss a picture of what to be well watered, fertile land. Bluegrass, this is a great place to be a farmer. , and especially on this map, he seems to be throwing the doors of peoples imaginations open to the possibility of settling in kentucky. Is an interesting question did it work . Adviceyou followed his and move there, what would your experience be . The answer is, it was complicated. People who took up land in early kentucky stumbled into a nightmarish set of problems associated with land distribution. Really embodied in the Virginia Land ordinance of 1779. Virginia extended its jurisdiction over all of kentucky and created a western county. 1779, the Virginia House of delegates passed a law that set out the terms by which people could claim land in this new western county. It was really complicated. The first thing about the Virginia Land ordinance of 1779 is a gay priority to settlers instead of speculators. Gave was an impulse it priority to settlers instead of speculators. People whoority to settled the land. They had to follow in order to actually gain title. Process was multistaged. The first thing you had to do first of all you had to go to kentucky to have a legitimate claim. It gave priority to settlers. Once you had gone to kentucky, the next thing you have to do is richmond in order to pay the fees that would allow you to claim the lands that you had already visited. You would go to the treasurers fee,e in richmond to pay a get a receipt, then to the Auditors Office sorry, that is where you would get the treasurers receipt. That he would go to the land office where you would get a land warrant. With a land warrant in hand, you could return to kentucky. In kentucky, register with the county surveyor and have the land surveyed. You go, first of all, to kentucky to find out where you want to be in the first place. Then you go back and go through an elaborate series of steps in richmond to get all of the legal paper you need to go back to kentucky and then you got to hire a surveyor to do a survey. A lot of people are doing this at the same time and there is no system in place in kentucky to make sure this occurs in kind of an orderly way. Then the surveyor issues you a certificate, along with an endorsed warrant and then you would go back to richmond to receive a land title. This is impossible. Nobody can do this. Course ofned in the the revolution, and especially after the revolution, is a lot of people went to kentucky and chaos ensued. The population of kentucky rose very slowly as long as there was active fighting going on and it ebbed and flowed during the war years. There were 12,000 people in 1783. After that point, it rose really fast. Were 100,000e people in kentucky. By 1800, there were 220,000 people, 40,000 of which were enslaved. This is a rapid pattern of population growth. If you look at what resulted from all of these people going to a place with a bad land distribution system, the early history of kentucky as a state features legal documents with a lot of pictures like this. A plat that was made by hancock taylor. The ohio, what is now louisville, kentucky. It shows all of the claims that competed with hers. The early history of kentucky is a history of nonstop the negation over surveyed property like this. This kind of problem is woven into the structure of that land distribution that Land Ordinance. Ie Kentucky Legislature mean, the Virginia Legislature thought they were creating a system that would be fair and democratic, because you had to do this stuff in the right order and the right way, but nobody can actually do what the statue described effectively. What you get is chaos. Is with this in mind, people like Thomas Jefferson in the 1780s were rethinking in fundamental ways the problem of land distribution. Thatis a process culminated in the northwest ordinance of 1787. For today, i asked you not to read about the northwest ordinance of 1787 but the Land Ordinance of 1784. The editors of the jefferson papers have a really good essay on the evolution of thinking about western lands that i asked you to take a look at. There are a lot of details in the Land Ordinance of 1784 and that got modified for the Land Ordinance of 1787. In your reading of that essay in the jefferson papers, what particularly struck you as the main take away point that the editors emphasized in describing this process of developing a land system . Points,emember any key particularly focusing on jefferson and his evolving thought about the transappalachian west . That part of the u. S. Territory beyond the bounds of the existing states. Editors might have diluted what jefferson was trying to get across. Jefferson was radical in his thoughts. To itors wanted it wanted to look at land as an extra resource, not just put it off and say we can keep extending. You think that essay dilutes the radicalism of jeffersons intentions. Jeffersons thought evolving. Considering as couple of western states and evolves this is a map. There is no map in jeffersons intentions but there is a surviving map that that essay talks about from 1784. One of the things jefferson had in mind, thomas payne wrote a pamphlet about the importance of this. All of the colonies that had claims to western lands that stretch into the interior, a lot virginia,olonies advantaged. The first thing jefferson and others believe was important to do was to have all of the individual states cede their western claims to the United States. The night states could deal with them all together. You can see jefferson has imagined western boundaries, including a pretty aggressive western boundary for the state of pennsylvania to open up these lands to new settlements. By 1784, jefferson has imagined the possibility of 14 different new western states. Both the Land Ordinance of 1784 in the northwest ordinance of 7 are very conscience conscious of the problems Virginia Landowners created. They want to have a system that will allow for rapid westward expansion in an orderly way. Salesm surveys and public are principles that are woven into the early ordinances. Mosthen, the thing that is famous, most noteworthy, and also most easily overlooked by americans because we take it for granted, the territorial system. What do i mean by the territorial system . What is the territorial system . Areas with less than a certain population cannot be incorporated as states until they reach a certain number . Technically, there were some states they could not reach that number . Then, they can gather together and apply for statehood status. This is so unusual. To the example of the british model of colonization. Great britain creates the colony of, name your colony virginia. There is never a time when virginia is going to be part of Great Britain. To envisionazy idea for a nation made up of states elasticion this kind of western boundary, elastic number of states. Jefferson here has drawn a map in which not yet existing states outnumber the original 13 states. This . Ation would do it is a strange idea. Have a strange idea to woven into the constitution a system that allows for the indefinite expansion of the nation through space and through adding of additional units. They have the power to overwhelm the original, political units. The state had originally made up the country. I have a question about the expansion part. What did france or spain or Great Britain think of this map . This clearly incorporates territories they supposedly claimed, like the northwest or southwest. That is right. Became, the United States had to worry a lot about the hostility of foreign powers in itsearly decades of existence. Even in territories that had to ,e that had been ceded britain never gave up its western coasts in the great lakes region. It continued to harass or encourage native allies to harass settlements. The word 1812 is a British Assault on american sovereignty. On multiple fronts at once. Similarly, spain in particular. Challenged american sovereignty over the American South east. Aaron burrr, and other people considered conspiring. People spent some time thinking about an alliance with spain would serve him better than an alliance with the United States. This map is envisioning a system that will encourage the rapid occupation and settlement of a gigantic New Territory of land did as people of land. As people take up the promise of that possibility, there is very good possibility the United States would not be the super impending power that would best serve their interests. There is a time in the early republic and people in the southwest are more interested or as interested in spain as a possible ally. I may be overstepping the bounds of this class, but was in the oregon territory split between britain and the United States for a long time . Country was split. Resolved until the 1840s that that boundary would be resolved without a fight. The dividing line between u. S. And british claims in oregon was fuzzy because the treaty of paris did not really draw the line that far out. This territorial system, this is radical system. It is a radical thing. There is no clear precedent for fortion inventing a system occupying your territory in this way. Occupying New Territory in this way. Admittednewsday to be in an equal footing with old states is striking. What you see in these provisions is the creation of an elastic nation. Here is a map that shows the Northwest Territory as it is ultimately created in 1787. In 1787, this is an act of the second communal congress. This is before the constitution has been drafted. This is at a point where the United Nations the United States is an infant, illdefined nation. This map stands as an open invitation to people who are interested in western expansion. To move it onto new lands on easy terms to moving on to lands in easy terms. At that United States is going to guarantee that process. The idea of a uniform public system of land distribution was by a moreermined complicated set of arrangements in the revolutionary time. In an ideal sense, jefferson thought it would be great to have this blake text is blank slate where you could ensure or you can have this blank slate where you could ensure public access. Congress had all kinds of reasons to support other kinds , particularly because Congress Needed money. It was always willing to take short to take shortcuts with western land. At the same time it was inventing the territorial system, it was proceeding with other kinds of private sales. Sold 5 million acres of land to the ohio company of new england. Made up ofmpany former officers in the Continental Army. Became theien acres original this 5 million acres became the core settlement of ohio. , subcontracted a debt a sale of one million acres to a company. Acresss sold over 300,000 to a guy named john cleve sims in 1788. Time, connecticut was claiming land that resulted of 3. 3 6ern reserve million acres. The point of this is to say that even at the same Time Congress was trying to map out this uniform system, it was also sowing confusion in various ways by allowing other groups to purchase our claim lands on their own terms. There was the problem of officers warrant from the revolution, which also gave Continental Army officers a and stateestern lands officers as well. That results in the creation of. He Virginia Military district four point 2 million acres. The u. S. Military district of 2. 5 million acres. We think of the northwest ordinance as being a clear and clean set of privations. Provisions. At the same time, congress is also hastily disposing of gigantic parcels of parcels on district terms in the west. On different terms in the west. 1787, Congress Also auctioned off 73,000 acres on the First Federal range in the terms of the northwest ordinance. All of this is Going Forward together at the same time, resulting in a map of ohio do not exist at this point, but this is a map of the modern state of ohio that shows all of these things laid out in relation to each other. The ohio Company Purchased the u. S. In military district. Purchased the connecticut western reserve. This is a complicated and chaotic system. By the way, every inch of background was claimed by some combination of native peoples claimill had a legitimate to control that land. , because thent United States was so enthusiastic about western land, it was preceding on all of these fronts at once. It desperately needed the money that western land could produce. It had to deal hastily and expeditiously with a large and complex native population that occupied the ohio country. They believed they had won whatever battles were fought during the course of the revolution. The United States implanted a series of what could be described as sham treaties. We often say indians were treated in the treaty making process. The truth is, different treaties have different stories. Some of them were very legitimate enterprises. This was a series of sham treaties where in most cases, legitimated not have representatives of the indian nations they were trying to deal with. There was liquor involved. There was coercion involved. The first of the treaties was the treaty of fort stanwyck right after the treaty of paris. Representatives of the Continental Congress raced off to upstate new york, trying to get there before new yorks own representatives to get there to deal with that your coy confederacy. The iroquois confederacy. This is one of the treaties in which native representatives present explicitly said they did not have the authority to sign any binding document. The United States presented them with the doctrine they had been defeated as a result of the british defeat. All insisted they cede their claims to land in the ohio country. They got a document that was signed, although it was contested by the arrow coy by ois. Era coy by the iroq congress came to recognize these treaties were problematic. They tried to organize a single treaty meeting in 1789 that would bring together representatives of all of the ohio indians in one mass gathering. Again, that United States walked away with a signed document. From the perspective of the native americans, it was completely chaotic and indeterminate. They contested the outcome. In that context with those fromies in the background, 1787 until 1794, the United States was back at war with the ohio indians. War that was the First Military undertaking of the new United States army. The first function of the u. S. Army was to try to defeat this coalition of ohio indians, which they knighted states had which they knighted states had failed to bargain with in the form of treaties. That United States needed to get out of the way if they were going to proceed with the western land enterprise. Arthur st. Clair was the first commander of American Forces in the ohio country. He did not do very well. And 1791, he suffered major defeats. And,s succeeded by anyway socalled mad anthony wayne, who had more success. He finally defeated in a decisive fashion, the Ohio Coalition at the battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. After that battle, the ohio indians signed the seat signed the treaty of greenville to bring an end to the conflict and agreed to signed away some of their lands. Is theaty of greenville first treaty in the ohio country that was the product not of negotiation but of warfare. Agreed tooalition of theay a big chunk alson state of ohio and part of indiana. You can see that the result of the warfare was to basically allow the United States to have control of most of the territories we just talked about they had in effect already arranged for the sale and settlement of. This pattern of rapid western expansion, without regard for native territorial claims, and in a process that accelerated violence between the United States and native americans in the rapid disposition of the experienceseries of in the 1780s and 1790s sets a pattern that United States follows for a long time. The u. S. Very soon comes to believe that not only it would be great to settle everything east of the mississippi, but that this was a nation with a continental destiny. A manifest destiny to overspread the continent. That was a doctrine. The doctrine of manifest destiny that bore hard on the interest of native people of native peoples. Asto the u. S. Look at this an effective way of dealing with the native americans . It is a good question. Did the u. S. Think of this as an effective way to deal with the native americans. Increasingly thought of it as the only way to deal with aid of americans. Because of the fact that it was rapid form ofch a territorial expansion that it could not take native claims to territory seriously. Is flipside of this story the story of not only warfare against indians, but also the fact that the United States chose to perpetuate european doctrines about the idea that native americans did not really own the land. That european claims superseded native american claims. That is the famous discovery doctrine. European crowns from the 16th say, fororward would example, you could divide up north america among france and britain and spain based on who discovered what. The presence of native americans was only incidental. It would have been possible for the United States in the era of all men are created equal, that discovery doctrine is problematic. We really ought to think about putting the claim of people who are already on the ground on a different footing and treating them more fairly. More respectfully. That is not the doctrine that evolved in the United States. Instead, the Marshall Court in the 1820s and 1830s explicitly says in a couple of important treaty documents that the european doctrine of discovery remains in force. Is funny because marshall he sometimes sounds bemused by the doctor. Hasays, this is the way it always been done. The two famous cases that still get excited all the time in this contest context r johnson b Mcintosh Johnson versus mcintosh. The first time, chief Justice John Marshall says the discovery doctrine that european crowns used in earlier centuries is still the doctrine that holds the day. He describes the pinkish show in the opinion as perpetual inhabitants with diminutive rights. He justifies the description by saying they were an inferior race of people without the privilege of citizens and under the perpetual production and people edge of the government. Upilage of the government. He needs to characterize them as racially distinct and inferior in american law. The same kind of ideas are articulated in the famous cherokee versus georgia case in 1831 where marshall coined the phrase, domestic dependent nations to describe the legal status of indians, which is a weird phrase. Domestic dependent. It is unclear how you can be a nation but also the pendant. Nation implies sovereignty. Domestic dependent implies no sovereignty. That is the kind of contradiction inherent in the phrase. It is at the heart of the legal reservatione modern system that continues to govern the relationship between Indian Tribes and the United States. Yeah. It is when we step back from this and think about and return to the question of, what did the American Revolution mean thenative americans, was revolution revolutionary for native americans . Not really. In final terms, it was the opposite. It perpetuated a doctrine that thanded them as less legitimate claimants to territory. It was revolutionary only in the sense that it put in place a set of mechanisms for National Expansion that accelerated the means by which they could be dispossessed. Through violence, through treaty through an egg through territorial through an expansion that denied the legitimacy of native claims. Any questions, thoughts . We talked about this in one of my classes in high school. Nativess would arm the and learned to hunt with rifles. Through the use of rifles, they would depend on colonist for ammunition and gunpowder. That describes domestic independent domestic dependent nations very well. That idea has to do with the idea that native communities came to rely on european manufacturers, it is a concept that anthropologists and historians have developed. Means whate, he marshall meant by dependence was not dependent on european venue factors. He means dependent on american law. They cannot run their own affairs. They are dependent in the sense that ultimately, what the nine states says goes. What the United States says, goes. Limitede certain autonomy within the system, that they are dependent on the United States. That idea of domestic dependent is still the way native tribes operate in relation to the states. I will see you on wednesday. Well talk about virtue, gender, and citizenship. Listen to lectures in history on the go by streaming our podcast anywhere, anytime. You are watching American History tv only on cspan3. This july is the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 mission to the moon. Send a unreal, a national prelaunch interview with the three astronauts. Armstrong, buzz aldrin, and michael collins. Here is a preview. This is after not Neil Armstrong this is asked or not Neil Armstrong. What is the purpose of the mission . Apollo 11 is mans first attempt to demonstrate the landty to go to the moon, there, and return to earth. How do you view your role as command module pilot . Apollo was designed to be a threeman drug. The third a threeman job. Is asird, which i prefer, important and no more than the other two positions. I would be a fool if i said i had the best seat of the three. On the other hand, i can say with complete honesty i am happy to have the seat i have and be doing the job i intend to do. How does it look . Describe what will be happening just before the lunar module touches down on the moon. We will continue burning the engine until an altitude of only about a lightes will ignite on our panel. We see it illuminate. Cut the engine. We fall the last several feet. Drifting to the right. 30 seconds. Contact light. Engine stopped. We copy it down, equal. The eagle has landed. Surface,exploring the aldrinot astronaut had this to say. We will go through the planned excursion on the surface with neil exiting the spacecraft first. That is one small step reman step for man, one giant leap for mankind. You can watch the interview with the three apollo 11 astronauts on real america. Now, you are watching American History tv. Every weekend beginning saturday 8 00 a. M. Eastern, we bring in 48 hours of unique programming, exploring our nations past. American history tv is only on cspan3. The first u. S. Congress was of 1789. March shortly after, George Washington was inaugurated as the first president. Up next, historians examine the early years of the federal government and the politics of the 1790s. This was part of a conference called remaking american political history. Welcome, everybody. Thank you for coming out