The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of the Nation by Colin G. Calloway

Jul 16, 2018 Matt rated it really liked it

Shelves: american-indians, french-and-indian-war, american-indian-wars, american-revolution, american-presidents, frontier

“In the course of almost fifty years [George] Washington grew from a young man out of his depth in the cultural practices, foreign policies, and geopolitical strategies of Indian country to the most powerful man on the continent, whose policies and precedents affected the lives and futures of thousands of Indian people. He had spent his life grasping for Indian land, although he never called it that. He had fought alongside Indian allies, and he had waged war against Indian people, Indian towns ...more

flag 79 likes · Like · see review

Jan 08, 2019 Terri rated it it was amazing

Shelves: tribe-creek, tribe-native-american-history, presidental-history, president-george-washington, tribe-new-york-native-am, tribe-iroquois, american-history, awards-nom-national-book, american-colonial-history

George Washington's nickname was "Conotocaurius" (Town Destroyer/Burner) by the Iroquois Native Americans. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of this well-researched book of American history that was never taught to us in school. Eye opening explanation of George Washington, his family and how they "acquired" the lands that they desired. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Apr 15, 2018 Bob H rated it it was amazing

Shelves: history, biography, social-history, military-history

Even after all the books written about George Washington, this is an important new look at the first president, and focused on his dealings with the native peoples of the colonial American frontier. It's well-researched, with good and pertinent maps and illustrations, with clear prose and narrative, and it's not a flattering portrait. We find Washington, as a young man, begin as a land surveyor, and quickly become a speculator in frontier lands, at a time when land speculators -- especially in V Even after all the books written about George Washington, this is an important new look at the first president, and focused on his dealings with the native peoples of the colonial American frontier. It's well-researched, with good and pertinent maps and illustrations, with clear prose and narrative, and it's not a flattering portrait. We find Washington, as a young man, begin as a land surveyor, and quickly become a speculator in frontier lands, at a time when land speculators -- especially in Virginia, we're told -- would seek to divide up, survey, and sell the lands west of the Appalachians to eager settlers. These lands -- western New York and Pennsylvania, the Ohio and Tennessee river valleys, the trans-Appalachian south -- were, of course, occupied by cohesive and vibrant Indian civilizations, people who were quick to see surveyors as a threat.

We read of Washington's transition into the Virginia militia and his inauspicious start to his military career, at a time when the native peoples began to contest the mid-18th Century British-American frontier encroachment and would contest it with force, and would find willing allies in the French. Washington's first military expedition would end with his defeat in 1754 at Ft. Necessity, and start the French and Indian War (and lead to a world war, the Seven Years' War). His second expedition, with regular British soldiers under Gen. Braddock, would fail to take the French-Indian fort at present-day Pittsburgh, and end in a massacre. The subsequent war would be one with much savagery, notably that of American colonial forces.

Much of Washington's correspondence survived this period, and he comes off, in this book's telling, as moody, whiny, jealous of other officers, quick to shift blame. He does learn that Indian methods of frontier fighting, and Indian allies, could be useful, which would inform his strategy in the subsequent Revolution -- a Revolution started, in part, by Britain's decision in 1763, the French war over, to placate the native peoples and bar American emigration across the mountains westward into Indian lands.

Still, the theme that Mr. Calloway keeps returning to, is that while Washington might negotiate with the native nations, and at times seek their help, his primary interest was in their lands. Indeed, by the end of the Revolution, Washington had personal title to 58,000 acres west of the Alleghenies, and at the peace treaty in Paris, with no Indians among the negotiators, the British would blithely concede the lands west of the Appalachians.

We read of the subsequent westward American expansion, and one last campaign by a confederation of Indian nations in the Ohio valley to resist, ultimately by armed force. Indeed, the native American peoples would win the greatest victory they would ever know, their coalition's 1791 defeat of Gen. St. Clair's army at the Wabash. The subsequent warfare, and ultimate U.S. victory, would take up much of Washington's presidency. Perhaps it was fated to be; the author notes that a terrible smallpox epidemic would, in the last years of the 18th Century, devastate the native peoples from the Appalachians to the Pacific and weaken any further resistance. The U.S. would grow on the lands thus surveyed and lost. It is an ugly side of Washington's life and legacy, and of the nation's founding, but it is an important story. Highest recommendation. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 16, 2018 Hannah Brislin rated it liked it

As it attempted to be unbiased, this book really only presented the view of the winners or European imperials. For the full historical context of this time period and subject matter, this book would need to be paired with another book that provides the experience of Native Americans.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Feb 09, 2019 Randall Wallace rated it it was amazing

“Washington knew what the Indians knew: the war in the West was a war for Indian land”. “In Washington’s day, the government dealt with Indians as foreign nations rather than domestic subjects.” So, encroaching on the lands of others has been US foreign policy since day one (and even before). Natives accurately called George Washington “Conotocarious” which means “Town Destroyer” or “Devourer of Villages”. Washington even took pride in the name. George was originally a surveyor. “Surveyors were “Washington knew what the Indians knew: the war in the West was a war for Indian land”. “In Washington’s day, the government dealt with Indians as foreign nations rather than domestic subjects.” So, encroaching on the lands of others has been US foreign policy since day one (and even before). Natives accurately called George Washington “Conotocarious” which means “Town Destroyer” or “Devourer of Villages”. Washington even took pride in the name. George was originally a surveyor. “Surveyors were the outriders of advancing settler society intent on turning Indian homelands and hunting territories into a commodity and the Indians knew it.” The surveyor’s compass was called “The Land Stealer”. Virginia was the forefront of westward expansion and this placed Washington directly where the pressure was greatest to remove Native tribes. Virginians willing to slaughter Natives, officially got for one scalp the same pay they got for working as a laborer for three months. So, state subsidized murder is an American tradition. Historian James Merrill said Washington “was instrumental in the dispossession, defeat, exploitation, and marginalization of Indian peoples.” And he largely used/followed Native American trails and freely ate Native foods and used Native herbal remedies while doing so. He marries a woman (Martha) with 200 slaves and soon jacks the number up to 300, because – hey – you just can’t have enough slaves when you are morally bankrupt.

The English wanted to enclose and divvy up the landscape while Natives were naturally opposed. The planters grew single crops which soon sickened the land and soon moved on to destroy the next bit while the Natives (there for the long haul) planted together corn, beans and squash and left them fallow to replenish the soil. “Indians were far more likely than British or colonial soldiers to spare the lives of their enemies.” Yet, “Indians were seven times more likely to be killed than captured.” The French were known to the Indians to be generous, the British were not. Britain knew that the further inland/west, settlers went, the less they would purchase British goods and help Britain. Yet boys will be boys and so the settlers did what all white sociopaths do – whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted. Colonial elites “developed a ‘settler political theory’ that included the right to acquire property by dispossessing and supplanting Native peoples without restriction or interference from imperial center.” In those days, 19 out of 20 colonists made their living through farming. Washington fought a defensive war against the British but an offensive one against the Native Americans. Washington won no battles and even early in the Revolution he was lackluster. “He was always more interested in Indian lands than in Indian allies.” General John Stark eloquently captured the opinion of Washington and others when he said, “We shall never be safe, in this country, until an Expedition is Carried into the Indians Country, & Effectually, Root out these nefarious Wretches, from the face of the Earth.” Yuck. Washington’s job was “to push the Indians as far as possible from the American frontiers… …and make the destruction of their settlements so final and complete as to put it out of their power to derive the smallest succor from them in case they should return this season.” Double yuck.

His army lived off the land as they went, noting “well-built towns, vast fields of corn, beans, squash, plum and cherry trees”. A traveling surgeon wrote he couldn’t imagine how the troops were going to be able to destroy all of it. It was noted that some officers had qualms about what they were doing. Non-combatants were usually killed by the army because taking them captive was too much work. Excuse me, we’ve really enjoyed your food, now we have to kill you and take your land, all so our great-great grand-kids can be told that no one has the right to take THEIR land! Ha ha… The destruction of native orchards was a real crime. Those puppies take a long time to grow. Israel cuts down Palestinian olive trees today for the same reason – to racially destroy the culture, lifestyle, livelihoods of “the other”. We want to make sure you have nothing to return home too. Campaigns that Washington personally ordered “caused untold human misery.” These pre-Rev War expeditions gave the Iroquois only greater allegiance to the British. The rebels now clearly “intended to steal their country and destroy them.” One historian comically noted that Washington was a nationalist before there was a nation. Seneca chiefs said when Washington’s name was mentioned “women look behind them and men turn pale and our children cling to the neck of their mothers.” The idea was simple, the more Iroquois lands you could steal before the end of the Revolutionary War was over, the better the case you could make to the British if you win the war. Not all leaders saw the prize at the end of the rainbow, but Washington clearly was banking on it. We are talking New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. All stolen by force, and no school kid in America will ever be taught about it in school. Why go for a “hollow victory” post-war if you get only the measly eastern seaboard, when with a simple “race war” you can take your all-white fantasyland all the way to the Mississippi River?

On eyewitness wrote, “the Country taulks of Nothing but killing Indians & taking possession of their lands.” Crawford’s torture and execution is skillfully used as American propaganda to make “killing Indians a patriotic act.” “The slaughter at Gnadenhutten was downplayed” and replaced with the story: “Indians had fought like savages to kill the nation at its birth”. “They must atone for their crimes by forfeiting their lands.” Settler Colonialism, Patrick Wolfe has told us, operates on the “logic of elimination.” Washington “realized his vision for the United States meant prying the continent from the peoples who inhabited it.” I’ll only “extirpate” your ass if you don’t cheerfully give up your digs for us entitled white men. Washington, America’s first gambler “owned around 58,000 acres of land west of the Alleghenies by the end of the Revolution” and he was ready to collect. In spite of his insider dealings, he saw the nation as the “chief beneficiary”. After the Revolution, one could no longer dispute Washington’s land claims. And so, even someone as virtuous as Washington morally stumbled, according to biographer John Ferling. Take this lovely comment of GW: “Our settlements will as certainly cause the Savage as the Wolf to retire: both being beasts of prey tho’ they differ in shape.”

Hamilton saw the Natives as to be removed because otherwise they would naturally ally with Britain or Spain against them. Hamilton wanted a standing army to take them out. Historian Alan Taylor says the elites were worried about class war or civil war unless the immigrants could steal their lebensraum westward. Land theft was an escape valve as the “social order combined inequality with opportunity”. “Certainly, Washington, Knox and Jefferson never doubted they could take away the Indian’s lands.” Washington’s main shtick was: “peace and justice if possible, extermination if necessary.” In return, the Indians got “civilization” which meant no more hunting (like Dick Cheney and Donald trump’s kids live to do) but they were free to do back-breaking non-subsidized non-industrial agriculture somewhere (not here) – until that land was also stolen. You needed a strong government and military to pull that robbery off and Colin calls the new nation “a nation born in war”. For Hamilton, selling this stolen land was also a way to pay off the millions of dollars of national debt. If settlers weren’t protected by your military, you’d lose land sales and speculators which snatch the real profit. Not to be outdone, Thomas Jefferson said, “I hope we shall give the Indians a thorough drubbing this summer.” Washington then literally offers the Indians “civilization or death”. Translation: “Washington’s civilization program constituted genocide by another name.” At one point, he fears there is no alternative left “but the sword”. Neither diplomacy and fairness were allowed on the foreign policy table. Historian Susan Sleeper-Smith sees evidence that Washington also thought kidnapping Indian women to be advantageous to his cause.

In New England, many logically opposed to the war saying it stemmed “from a wish on the part of the United States to obtain lands to which they had no claim.” Many correspondents to Washington criticized his not “giving peace a chance.” One congressman was upset that three years and millions of dollars had been spent, but no citizen knew why was the war fought. One commissioner of Indian affairs said you’d have to be crazy to not sympathize with the Indians. Imagine if our teachers told us Washington invaded the Iroquois? Knox tries to temper Washington, reminding how it looks to Europe if we are seen as attacking benign foreign nations. Indian killing and land theft between 1790 and 1796 cost 5 million dollars (5/6 of federal expenditures for the period). Knox famously predicted back then, “A future historian may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race with sable colors.” What was destroyed? Communal fields, family farms, native plants, and tribal ethics of sharing and reciprocity. Washington knowingly replaces it all with monocrops that will deplete the soil and throw the land out of the balance achieved by its past residents. Washington leads a clear move towards a biracial society and personally had more than 300 slaves in 1799. “He had spent his life grasping for native land.” Big government alone had laid the way for western expansion. And so, “the first President initiated policies that committed the United States to an imperial path.” After Washington, Jefferson opted to lure natives into debt as a new way to dispossess them. Just as Coltrane and Miles had their own strong style in creating and giving, so each early President had their own strong style in destroying and taking. By the end of this magnificent book, “U.S. Indian policy had veered from assimilation in the name of ‘civilization’ to ethnic cleansing under the name of removal.” I can’t rank this revelatory book highly enough. Bravo…
...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 30, 2018 Rama rated it really liked it

Shelves: united-states, american-history, history

Formative years: President Washington’s efforts to reform the new nation on Native American land

George Washington spent his life turning the Native American land for the new republic as well as his personal real estate. He believed that land acquired for a song would sell for a fortune. When European immigrants flooded the country, he owned extensive lands in what is now known as VA, WV, MD and PA. White immigrants settled in western territories in United States, they helped entrench slave labo Formative years: President Washington’s efforts to reform the new nation on Native American land

George Washington spent his life turning the Native American land for the new republic as well as his personal real estate. He believed that land acquired for a song would sell for a fortune. When European immigrants flooded the country, he owned extensive lands in what is now known as VA, WV, MD and PA. White immigrants settled in western territories in United States, they helped entrench slave labor. Eventually the new immigrants became slave-owners. Slavery and forcible occupation of lands from Native American tribes became the norm of the day. In the American society, both slavery and Native American mistreatments were divisive, dominating, illegal under colonial laws and downright immoral according Christian teachings. This was painful to the first president, but he also had the responsibility to unite the country and serve the interest of fringe groups which benefited the young nation. For example, he did not express his views on slowing the pace of slavery or respect the treaty with native tribes and their sovereignty. Conservatives frowned upon any idea that would grant rights or concessions to blacks or elevate Natives to the same level as white Americans. But Washington needed native tribes on his side so that he could fight off any military advances from English from the north or Spanish from south. He was also very wary of fierce war between revolutionary France and English Monarchy that would have divided English-loyalists and American patriots in United States. He had to ensure that natives will not aid English or French forces in any war that may ensue.

The first President’s Native American policies eroded their rights he claimed to protect and undermined the tribal sovereignty. Assaults on the resources of Native population continued to soar until their extinction. During almost fifty years of his life, the new nation’s culture, practices, foreign policies and geopolitical strategies evolved. He fought alongside native American allies in one war, and waged war against other tribes in another war. But he also enjoyed diplomacy when needed to enhance the power of federal political structure. He made controversial laws that granted Natives their sovereignty and made laws alongside so that they are not independent to make treaties with other colonial powers. They are to make treaty only with U.S and nobody else. The president and his supporters expected that native Americans left their hunting life-styles and became agriculturists and confirmed to Christian standards as mandated by boarding schools. When the Natives adapted to this way of living and became slave-owners and lived like white immigrants, the conservative population resented this change and wanted Native Americans to live as under-class but keep the lands for further white occupation. It was a sad irony to the new nation, but English monarchy kept the new democracy under check by constantly looking for cracks in the new republic and its relationship with Native Americans. The new America was using racial and slavery politics at astonishing scale and English expected that it was a matter of time that a breakdown may occur and beat the new republic in its own territory. But George Washington was one step ahead. He developed cozy relationship with well-known tribes like; Mohawks, Senecas, Oneidas, Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Creeks. He knew that these tribes were vital to the national security, and survival of a fragile democracy amongst formidable adversaries like England, France and Spain. The president also knew that the new immigrants coming from Europe needed land and will inevitably occupy the Native American lands that will eventually be settled in a conflict and use of force. The federal government found itself weak during the formative years. It was very vulnerable to political chaos domestically as well as due to foreign powers.

I enjoyed reading this comprehensive work that recounts the relationship between Native Americans and George Washington that lasted much of his life. Here, Professor Colin Calloway of Dartmouth College reexamines the highs and lows of George Washington’s legacy as the first president.
...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2020 Christopher rated it really liked it

"Yes, but do you have a flag?" (credit: Eddie Izzard)

A comprehensive, if sometimes dense, history of George Washington's interactions with indigenous peoples of America across his life as surveyor, British subject, Soldier, Revolutionary general, and President.

Calloway's 2018 survey of Washington and the Amer. Indians is less about Washington himself than it is about the Revolutionary generation's interactions with the dozens of tribes and hundreds of tribal leaders they encountered from the 17 "Yes, but do you have a flag?" (credit: Eddie Izzard)

A comprehensive, if sometimes dense, history of George Washington's interactions with indigenous peoples of America across his life as surveyor, British subject, Soldier, Revolutionary general, and President.

Calloway's 2018 survey of Washington and the Amer. Indians is less about Washington himself than it is about the Revolutionary generation's interactions with the dozens of tribes and hundreds of tribal leaders they encountered from the 1750s through the end of the century. Washington's experience serves as a representative sample of how the landed gentry viewed the various tribes and their relationships with them.

Let's just say it was complicated. It's simplistic and juvenile to lump all colonists together with a uniform view of the indigenous tribes just as it's simplistic and juvenile to assume all tribes acted the same. Some colonists/revolutionaries were very sympathetic and honorable towards the various tribes, many were not. Some recognized the tension between honoring treaty obligations and property boundaries with a populace that saw little problem with squatting on fertile open land (in part because nobody was within miles of it). Some tribes were peacable and wanted to attempt to coexist with the Europeans, others wanted to wage war, others wanted to leverage the European presence to their own advantage in their own internecine battles with other tribes.

Calloway does a decent job laying out these internal and external conflicts with Washington and the myriad tribal leaders (though he is far too credulous with stories of "the settlers kidnapped by war parties loved tribal life so much they didn't want to leave!" when there's ample evidence on the other side of the ledger).

Washington himself comes across as REALLY REALLY REALLY interested in land speculation and the profits to be gained by it. This does not diminish Washington as a man or leader (his early "skills" as a General are something else entirely -- let's face it -- he wasn't that good and Calloway recounts his troubles very well), but places him firmly within his class and time. In a land with billions of open acreage, it's natural for a population that revered real property and title to think they hit the motherlode. And they kind of did....but for the people that were there.

And that's where the inevitable and irreconcilable conflict between the Europeans and indigenous tribes comes in. A culture that valued real property and land title and agriculture vs largely nomadic tribes that subsisted on farming. To be pithy, the foreignness of the tribal view towards ownership is like the guy in the gym that is working on one machine but claims he's using 10 other machines as part of his "circuit." The two approaches are so opposed, one had to adapt to the other, and one side did (though not without cost). ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 28, 2019 Katie rated it really liked it

This book is pretty dense, which made it a little hard for me to retain specific information in it, but the overall story it tells and the way it recontextualizes George Washington's life is interesting and valuable. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2019 Ted Hunt rated it it was amazing

I took a week long Gilder Lehrman class at my alma mater, Dartmouth College, in the summer of 2016, and it was taught by Colin Calloway, so I'm a bit partial to this book. I found that it really succeeded in meeting its goal of putting the world of the American Indians, most notably their interaction with the European colonists (and then American citizens), right at the center of the history of the nation in the last half of the eighteenth century. There was never any doubt that the contest betw I took a week long Gilder Lehrman class at my alma mater, Dartmouth College, in the summer of 2016, and it was taught by Colin Calloway, so I'm a bit partial to this book. I found that it really succeeded in meeting its goal of putting the world of the American Indians, most notably their interaction with the European colonists (and then American citizens), right at the center of the history of the nation in the last half of the eighteenth century. There was never any doubt that the contest between Britain and France for the loyalty of the native tribes was the main cause of the French and Indian (Seven Years) War of 1754-1763. And the book makes it clear that the outcome of that war had a lot to do with the success (or lack thereof) of the diplomacy between the various European powers and the natives. The author then goes on to make a convincing case that the deterioration of the relationship between the British government and the American colonists post-1763 was largely due to issues involving the Indians. The Proclamation of 1763, designed to keep the colonists east of the Appalachian Mountains so that they would not infringe on native land, was seen by many Americans as the first "attack" on their freedoms, and Pontiac's War of that same year necessitated the stationing of a permanent standing British army within the colonies, with Parliament passing a series of revenue-raising measures designed to get the Americans to take on at least part of the cost of maintaining those troops. The book proposes that one of the big reasons that Washington became a leader of the rebellion was that British measures were prohibiting him from fully profiting from the land speculation in which he was engaged in the Ohio country. There is a substantial amount of time spent describing the 1779 Sullivan campaign in Western New York, ordered by Washington, that cemented his nickname among the Haudenosaunee as "Town Destroyer." Once Washington became president, much, if not the majority of his "foreign policy" revolved around Indian diplomacy, and the book contends that the very first tensions over state vs. federal authority came over the question of who had the right to negotiate treaties with the native tribes. Much of Washington's energies were spent in trying (unsuccessfully) to get the natives to adopt the American version of "civilization" as a way to insure their survival, although Calloway demonstrates that even those tribes who adopted come of the trappings of American life never gave up their Indian identity. In the end, Washington's actions during his adult life, as a land speculator, general, and president, helped to establish the patterns of expansion that did so much harm to the native tribes. But I was appreciative of the author's final thoughts on Washington's legacy as president, for while his approach to the natives was acquisitive and paternalistic, it did contain a certain degree of humanity, as it did not embrace the ethnic cleansing, genocidal policies of many of his successors in the White House. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 10, 2019 Jerome rated it really liked it

A broad, well-written and insightful work.

Calloway ably covers how Washington’s self-interest, ignorance and prejudice influenced his dealing with the natives, and emphasizes a common theme throughout all of his dealings with the Indians: Washington really wanted to treat the tribes fairly, but still wanted their land even more. He covers Washington’s ideas of turning the Indians into farmers and why it didn’t work, how difficult it was to make a lasting peace when the settlers kept expanding we ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 10, 2018 Marcia rated it it was amazing

This book is amazing. If you have any interest in the early years of this country, the Native Americans, and our first president— read this book. I knew little about Washington as a person, only as I was taught about him in school. I also knew little about the Native American tribes and their leaders at that time. This book opened a window on what really happened in our country's early history and the role Washington and the Native Americans played. It's a bit long but worth the read. Very well ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 25, 2020 William Bahr rated it it was amazing

A major takeaway of this book: What name did the Indians give both George Washington and his great-grandfather John? “Town Destroyer”! It was a moniker George wore with pride. In a major way, he often felt he had to “destroy an Indian village to save it.” And, if his destruction of Indian lives was not immediate, it was eventual in that the burning of crops led to starvation when the Indians did not find food through difficult migration.

This book is not for the casual reader. It is a dense, scho A major takeaway of this book: What name did the Indians give both George Washington and his great-grandfather John? “Town Destroyer”! It was a moniker George wore with pride. In a major way, he often felt he had to “destroy an Indian village to save it.” And, if his destruction of Indian lives was not immediate, it was eventual in that the burning of crops led to starvation when the Indians did not find food through difficult migration.

This book is not for the casual reader. It is a dense, scholarly work, almost to the point of being a reference book, with seemingly few details too small to be left out. Its focus is the Indians of George Washington’s world, a subject mostly hidden and often glossed over in the vast majority of Washington literature. Yes, many of us knew that this Indian world was not monolithic, that interests differed among the tribes, and that tribes often pitted the French, the British, the Americans, and, indeed, other Indian tribes against one another to save their land from exploitation/confiscation. But did we know such interesting details that most of Washington’s Indian allies deserted him before Fort Necessity, then fought for the French there at Fort Necessity, and then saved Washington’s force from complete annihilation by making noises suggesting to the French that a British relief force was soon to rescue Washington, prompting a quick settlement for Washington’s surrender and safe release? Such was the sophistication of Indian strategies to not let one European force get too powerful.

In following Washington’s life on a mostly chronological basis, the author weaves a rich tapestry but with much of the underside threadwork showing, akin to taking one on a full tour of a sausage factory. The author pulls no punches, often calling Washington a liar in his dealings with Indians. Regardless of Washington’s promises and his own previous experience in having in part fought the British for denying him land in Indian territory, those treaties he himself signed invariably led to European immigration he later felt helpless to stop.

Washington tried to square and rationalize his binary choice of converting Indians to European customs or “extirpating” them. His justification for the forced assimilation? He believed his enlightened English culture was superior. English law pronounced that mixing your hands with the soil made it yours, so long as you could defend it. In dealing with Indians, Washington confronted two different paradigms: savage hunters and collective (tribal) rights versus civilized farmers and individual rights. It was no mystery that Washington came down on the side of “civilization’s” territorial imperative (walls and fences for private property were better than open communal land), as Washington was a surveyor since the age of sixteen. He had spent his whole life measuring and acquiring land. Thus Washington apparently had few qualms about unleashing the "Indian-extirpating” General John Sullivan in the Mohawk Valley (NY) during the Revolutionary War and later General “Mad” Anthony Wayne at Fallen Timbers (near Toledo, OH).

In reading this book, keep in mind a letter Washington wrote to John Banister in 1778: "I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward." For Washington himself, this must have obviously and personally meant land in the Northwest Territory. Of course, Washington showed a talent for living, learning, and mending his moral failings on the way to the evolved "marble man" perfection his character eventually became. Yet his final views on Indians never came close to being on par with his “only unavoidable subject of regret” (keeping slaves).

Bottom line and as a fellow author, I'd say the book is extremely well done and highly recommended for a view of Washington not seen before. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 10, 2019 Jory rated it really liked it

Shelves: book-group

Read this for book group this month. Washington's journals provided a huge amount of information to scholar Colin Calloway as he took a hard look at our nation's first president's interest in land expansion and the diplomacy he carried out with numerous Indian nations in the mid-late 1700s. Calloway definitely reinforces that land was wealth, and the amount of land that European settlers (like Washington's family) assumed was theirs, offers a good look at our early wealth in this country: stolen ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 05, 2020 Dorothy rated it really liked it

LOTS of information. Some what dry and difficult to read.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 07, 2020 James Bechtel rated it it was amazing

Colin Calloway's study provides a wealth of excellent historical context to the problems, conflicts, and proposed solutions relating to Indigenous Americans in the colonial and early national decades of the country. Resistance and adaptation. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 29, 2019 Wbahrmail.Com rated it it was amazing

A major takeaway of this book: What name did the Indians give both George Washington and his great-grandfather John? “Town Destroyer”! It was a moniker George wore with pride. In a major way, he often felt he had to “destroy an Indian village to save it.” And, if his destruction of Indian lives was not immediate, it was eventual in that the burning of crops led to starvation when the Indians did not find food through difficult migration.

This book is not for the casual reader. It is a dense, scho A major takeaway of this book: What name did the Indians give both George Washington and his great-grandfather John? “Town Destroyer”! It was a moniker George wore with pride. In a major way, he often felt he had to “destroy an Indian village to save it.” And, if his destruction of Indian lives was not immediate, it was eventual in that the burning of crops led to starvation when the Indians did not find food through difficult migration.

This book is not for the casual reader. It is a dense, scholarly work, almost to the point of being a reference book, with seemingly few details too small to be left out. Its focus is the Indians of George Washington’s world, a subject mostly hidden and often glossed over in the vast majority of Washington literature. Yes, many of us knew that this Indian world was not monolithic, that interests differed among the tribes, and that tribes often pitted the French, the British, the Americans, and, indeed, other Indian tribes against one another to save their land from exploitation/confiscation. But did we know such interesting details that most of Washington’s Indian allies deserted him before Fort Necessity, then fought for the French there at Fort Necessity, and then saved Washington’s force from complete annihilation by making noises suggesting to the French that a British relief force was soon to rescue Washington, prompting a quick settlement for Washington’s surrender and safe release? Such was the sophistication of Indian strategies to not let one European force get too powerful.

In following Washington’s life on a mostly chronological basis, the author weaves a rich tapestry but with much of the underside threadwork showing, akin to taking one on a full tour of a sausage factory. The author pulls no punches, often calling Washington a liar in his dealings with Indians. Regardless of Washington’s promises and his own previous experience in having in part fought the British for denying him land in Indian territory, those treaties he himself signed invariably led to European immigration he later felt helpless to stop.

Washington tried to square and rationalize his binary choice of converting Indians to European customs or “extirpating” them. His justification for the forced assimilation? He believed his enlightened English culture was superior. English law pronounced that mixing your hands with the soil made it yours, so long as you could defend it. In dealing with Indians, Washington confronted two different paradigms: savage hunters and collective (tribal) rights versus civilized farmers and individual rights. It was no mystery that Washington came down on the side of “civilization’s” territorial imperative (walls and fences for private property were better than open communal land), as Washington was a surveyor since the age of sixteen. He had spent his whole life measuring and acquiring land. Thus Washington apparently had few qualms about unleashing the "Indian-extirpating” General John Sullivan in the Mohawk Valley (NY) during the Revolutionary War and later General “Mad” Anthony Wayne at Fallen Timbers (near Toledo, OH).

In reading this book, keep in mind a letter Washington wrote to John Banister in 1778: "I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward." For Washington himself, this must have obviously and personally meant land in the Northwest Territory. Of course, Washington showed a talent for living, learning, and mending his moral failings on the way to the evolved "marble man" perfection his character eventually became. Yet his final views on Indians never came close to being on par with his “only unavoidable subject of regret” (keeping slaves).

Bottom line, the book is extremely well done and highly recommended for a view of Washington not seen before.

“Character is Key to Liberty!” Check out one of William J. Bahr’s books: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key – the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul, a best seller at Mount Vernon. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 26, 2019 Jefferson Coombs rated it liked it

Shelves: history

It was very interesting to think about the early history of the country with the Native Americans as the main players rather than as a sidebar. I found his treatment of Washington to be pretty fair. He wasn't perfect but mostly he had good intentions and everyone is human and seeks to gain benefit for themselves. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2019 Katie/Doing Dewey rated it liked it

This is the last of the National Book Awards shortlist books I was able to read before the awards, but I'm a little slow getting to a review! I found it a bit of a slow read as well. While the information it contained was fascinating, the writing didn't do the material justice. It did make me realize that there was an amazing amount of diversity and inter-tribal politicking among Native Americans during Washington's times that gets completely glossed over in most histories. There were an incredi ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 01, 2019 Todd Stockslager rated it liked it

Shelves: history

Review title: Founding Father, Town Destroyer

Early in his career as a military leader facing the Native Americans in battle, George Washington was given the Native American name Conotocarious, meaning "Town Destroyer." While we learn the outline of Washington's career in school, his time in the western wilderness of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Ohio Valley is often brushed over. Calloway has written this history to fill in the brush strokes and reveal how and how much Washington affected and Review title: Founding Father, Town Destroyer

Early in his career as a military leader facing the Native Americans in battle, George Washington was given the Native American name Conotocarious, meaning "Town Destroyer." While we learn the outline of Washington's career in school, his time in the western wilderness of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Ohio Valley is often brushed over. Calloway has written this history to fill in the brush strokes and reveal how and how much Washington affected and was affected by the Indian nations on the borders of the colonies he defended and expanded and then the young country he lead.

Calloway's longish history is at times plodding, but what it lacks in polish it makes up in completeness as he follows the influence on and the influence of Washington and his Indian "brothers", as he called them in his early days, and "children" as he called them in his days as President of the United States and Father of the new republic. Calloway mostly sticks with the term Indian throughout as it was the term used by contemporaries in his primary sources.

From the beginning of the arrival of European adventurers on the East coast of the continent the tempestuous relationship seemed predestined as foreign diseases wiped out large percentages of native populations before aggressive settlers in search of rich real estate began challenging the surviving native Americans for their hunting and tribal lands. Speculators (including Washington) claimed title by colonial charter, eminent domain and lightly-documented survey records, leading to frontier clashes when the British and French, engaged in a European war, armed their own Indian allies and the young Washington led a ragtag bunch of militia and Indians to defeat in western Pennsylvania in the first battles of the French and Indian War in the middle of the 18th century. While alliances were shifting and often shaky, it was clear to one native American what the cause and the outcome would be: "It is plain you white people are the cause of this war; why do not you and the French fight in the old country, and on the sea. Why do you come to fight on our land? This makes every body believe, you want to take the land from us by force, and settle it." (P. 154)

After the British and French settled their differences, and after a brief Indian-lead effort known as Pontiac's War (the minor but pivotal battle being fought at Bushy Run in Pennsylvania about 10 miles from where I live) , Calloway quotes Joseph Ellis, "at bottom lurked a basic conflict about the future of the Ohio Country: Washington believed it was open to settlement; the British government believed it was closed; and the Indians believed it was theirs." (P. 184) Washington certainly tried to make some of it his by acquiring thousands of acres in Pennsylvania, Ohio, western Virginia, and Kentucky before finding his rising career as a planter-gentleman first interrupted and then bolstered by his military performance in the Revolution. As Calloway writes, the maturing Washington learned from his poor performance and insensitive Indian relations in the French and Indian War to become the successful and revered leader of the patriot army and eventually the new republic's government. After the revolution, American thoughts--and Washington's--turned to uniting and expanding the new country inland. The outcome of the revolution --a victorious republic bound by the desire to expand west into "vacant" native land. (P. 283)

Even after the successful Revolutionary War to establish the American republic, and the ratification of the Constitution which established a workable federal government to maintain it, the "Indian World" of Calloway's title still shaped the country's formation and subsequent political and geographical history. The first treaty signed and ratified by congress under the Constitution was a treaty with southern Creek native Americans (P. 370), and during the process Washington made the first (and last) appearance of a sitting president in the Senate cheers to seek the advice and consent of the Senate as required by the Constitution. It was, says Calloway, "a fiasco" (P. 358-360). The Senate felt Washington expected a quick ratification with no questions asked, while the senators conducted a vigorous debate on the meaning and process meant by the seemingly simple phrase "advise and consent". "'This defeats every purpose of my coming here!' exclaimed Washington in exasperation" (P. 359).

In Calloway's own admission, the young Washington was a callow, ambitious, and unlikable career climber, who matured in his military ability and political wisdom to rightly take his place as the beloved Father of his country and his native "children". While he meant well in his dealings with Indians, certainly when compared to many of his contemporaries, the contradiction between Washington's stated policy of treating Indians justly and peacefully through treaties and the nation's relentless westward drive to acquire and convert native lands to white ownership was never resolved in Washington's lifetime or since. Calloway never shies from this harsh truth but never condemns Washington from a modern perspective. His narrative style sometimes is dry, and the thread can get lost in the details of dozens of native names and tribes, but Indian World is authoritatively documented from primary sources and stands as a worthy and unique study of the influence of the Indian world in shaping our world today. ...more

flag Like · see review

Apr 06, 2018 Kathleen rated it really liked it

This is not a book to be read in one sitting. However, it is a well-researched account accessible to the non-specialist. I was surprised how little I knew about the Indian policies articulated by Washington and their lasting affect. The book also describes Indians as actors, a real force to be reckoned with in the colonial period and the early years of nationhood.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 11, 2018 Chris Chester rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction

“In the course of almost fifty years Washington grew from a young man out of his depth in the cultural practices, foreign policies, and geopolitical strategies of Indian country to the most powerful man on the continent, whose policies and precedents affected the lives and futures of thousands of Indian people. He had spent his life grasping for Indian land, although he never called it that. He had fought alongside Indian allies, and he had waged war against Indian people, Indian towns, and Indi

...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 19, 2020 Charles Inglin rated it it was amazing

You'll never look at George Washington the same after reading this rather lengthy and comprehensive work. And all in all, that's a good thing. Washington emerges as a complex and very human person rather than the near mythological hero of grade school texts.
Washington was very much a man of his times and of his class, the Virginian planters. As a young man he was ambitious to promote himself and to build a fortune. The former he attempted to achieve by putting himself forward for military offi You'll never look at George Washington the same after reading this rather lengthy and comprehensive work. And all in all, that's a good thing. Washington emerges as a complex and very human person rather than the near mythological hero of grade school texts.
Washington was very much a man of his times and of his class, the Virginian planters. As a young man he was ambitious to promote himself and to build a fortune. The former he attempted to achieve by putting himself forward for military office in the militia and talking his way into positions he was really unqualified for. His initial forays to the frontier in the maneuvering with the French on the Ohio were disastrous, helping to bring on the French and Indian War. Washington's lack of familiarity with the complexities of Indian diplomacy and society may have allowed an anti-French Seneca to "play" him, resulting in the de Jumonville murder. Washington likely took liberties with his account of his services to the Braddock expedition. But as colonel of the Virginia regiment Washington did as well as could be expected with limited resources on a long open frontier, and did gain valuable experience as a commander.
Washington's plans to build a fortune revolved around land, as it did with most ambitious colonials. Good land east of the Appalachians was rapidly being taken up, but there were vast stretches of unoccupied land west of the mountains, that was within the power of the Crown to grant. Washington, like others, worked every angle he could to gain land grants, sometimes making claims for land he wasn't technically entitled to. Between the French and Indian War and the Revolution Washington acquired title to thousand of acres in western Pennsylvania, Virginia and the future Ohio and Kentucky.
The flaw in the land schemes of course was that the land was occupied by Indians who didn't recognize the right of the Kings of France or England, or the governors of the colonies to give their land to white people. Before and after the both the French War and the Revolution there numerous treaties in which Indians were manipulated into selling tracts of land. Many of these were fraudulent, taking advantage of the different Indian understanding of land and ownership and tribal politics. The flood of settlers over the mountains in search of land, whether they had rights to it or not, caused constant friction and acts of violence, committed as much by the settlers as by the Indians.
In an effort to prevent another Indian war, the British government established a line beyond which white settlers were not allowed, effectively canceling thousands of acres of land grants, including much of Washington's. Anger at this action was one of the causes of the Revolution. Ironically, when the United States became independent and Washington became the first president he was faced with the same problem and attempted the same solution, establishing lines beyond which the land belonged to the Indians. And the results were essentially the same. Settler pressure on Indian land made attempts at orderly settlement of the west futile.
Washington had learned much from his dealings with the Indians and had gained a considerable measure of respect from them. His vision was for the Indians to adapt to white methods of agriculture and participate in the white economy, giving up hunting and the need for large tracts of hunting land, which would make the "excess" land available for white settlement. In practice, some Indians were already making the transition on their own, with the Creeks in the South adopting large scale grazing and the Iroquois adapting to white farming. But the fly in the ointment was that the changes, as envisaged by Washington and other white proponents, flew in the face of Indian social structures and was not an easy transition. In the end it was only ever partially successful and, despite Washington's hopes that Indians would be incorporated into the United States their land was constantly under pressure and in the early 1800's pressure for removal of the Indians to west of the Mississippi would become to great.
As for Washington's hopes of building a fortune based on land, he died land rich but cash poor. His plan had been more or less based on the model of the English landed aristocracy, where he would sell some land but retain ownership of much of it, which would be rented out to provide his income. But large amounts of land were available and the most of the settlers wanted to own their own land rathe than rent. Even selling his land proved problematic, as Washington wanted top dollar in what was a buyers market.
This is an excellent volume for the student of the colonial and revolutionary United States. It gives a good narration of the complexities of colonial society and frontier relations between colonials, the British government, France, Spain and the many Indian nations, which themselves were involved in complex inter-tribal relations.
...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 22, 2020 Cindy Leighton rated it it was amazing

Shelves: us-history, biography-autobiography-memoir

I mean I knew we took this land from the Ojibwe, the Seneca, the Cherokee, Wyandotte, Iroquois and all the other people who lived here before us - but reading 600 pages of incredibly well researched details about the ruthlessness with which our first President picked fights and destroyed nations so that he and others could make money off of land speculation. . . this was a rough read. Calloway's main conclusion after a lifetime of research and a professorship at Dartmouth College is that "Washin I mean I knew we took this land from the Ojibwe, the Seneca, the Cherokee, Wyandotte, Iroquois and all the other people who lived here before us - but reading 600 pages of incredibly well researched details about the ruthlessness with which our first President picked fights and destroyed nations so that he and others could make money off of land speculation. . . this was a rough read. Calloway's main conclusion after a lifetime of research and a professorship at Dartmouth College is that "Washington spent a lifetime turning Indian homelands into real estate for himself and his nation."

It is no wonder Washington was called "Conotocaurius"by the Iroquois, which meant Town Destroyer, or Devourer of Villages. According to Calloway, Washington's Indian "diplomacy" was "always about land," and by the time of his death, Washington owned over 58,000 acres of Indian land. In school we learn about Washington's early training as a surveyor, and about how he used what he learned fighting Indians to better fight the British. What we learn less about is why he was so interested in surveying - that it was the first step in land grabbing. After reading this book you see Washington primarily as a real estate developer - always trying to "buy" land on the cheap, pushing Indians off when he could, burning their villages and crops and starving them out when he couldn't easily them them off, all in pursuit of cheap land he could later resell at a profit.

Washington also made attempts to "civilize" and assimilate native populations. He believed that if he could get various tribes to adapt European traditions of raising domesticated animals instead of hunting, they would require less land - leaving more land for people like Washington to acquire. Surprisingly (to him, not to anthropologists) farming and herding animals - adapting the White Man's way of life, actually ended up in larger land needs and acquisitions. Some tribes even assimilated so well as to adapt to the White man's tradition of enslaving persons captured and imported from the African continent. The Cherokee were, of course, the most "successful" in this assimilation - and yet this assimilation would offer them no protection from future president Andrew Jackson and his Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears.

This is not an easy read - both because of the horrifying content and because it is dense with names of leaders, negotiations, battles and such. But it is an important read. Calloway even implies that much of Washington's motivation in fighting for indpendence from England in the first place was England's 1763 treatise stating that the US ended at the Appalachian mountains - reserving land west of the mountains for the natives who lived there. Washington wanted to expand beyond the mountains, and this declaration may have been the actual motivation for the fight for "freedom" - land grab.
...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 06, 2018 Bonnie_blu rated it really liked it

Shelves: history

As Calloway ably relates in this extremely detailed work, George Washington had many admirable qualities and talents, and it's likely that we would have lost the Revolutionary War without him. However, he was also a man of his time and social position, which strongly influenced the evolution of his attitudes toward Native Americans. And while not an excuse for his actions, it does help us to understand why he did what he did (and didn't do).

Washington did not see Native American societies as com ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 21, 2020 Ron Ross rated it it was ok

Shelves: indian-history, history

If you finish reading this book you are definitely tenacious. This book was not a page turner, very monotonous. I had hoped that this book would have some particulars on George Washington and his involvement with American Indians. Some books I’ve read take a few pages to give me the direction to paint the word pictures that the author is trying to stress. This book never gave me that reaction. The author has done a great deal of research however it seemed to me that the author tried to get anoth ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 28, 2020 Sharon rated it it was amazing

Shelves: history, reality-rocks

In 2020, when protesters widened their targets of criticism from Confederates to the very founders of the United States, I sought to re-educate myself on early American history through the lenses of Native Americans and slavery. I used the big COVID stay-cation to read and study several top-shelf books, spending a couple MONTHS reading The Indian World of George Washington by Colin Calloway. I could only read about ten pages per day because the information is so dense and thought-provoking. I re ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 23, 2020 Charles rated it liked it

I liked this, but was left a little confused at the end where the author talks about Washington's attitude toward slavery--I had read elsewhere that Washington was fully committed to the institution, and had relentlessly tried to hunt down Ona Judge, an escapee from Mount Vernon. Here, we read about Washington being "trapped" in a slave-based economic system he privately disliked, wanted ended, but one that he publicly did not challenge. I think I believe the first account more, about him being ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 30, 2020 Edy rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, historical-non-fiction, autobiography-biography

There are two things I find interesting about history: 1-you should be prepared to learn from it, and 2-be prepared for surprises.

Those two statements were certainly evident in this book. Like everyone, I knew many facts, and many nonfacts, about Washington; however, that knowledge was limited to his time in the Revolutionary War and general information about his being our first president, etc. I had no knowledge of the way he handled the Native Americans. Big surprise for me: Washington handled ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 25, 2020 Tony rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A very detailed and well sourced account of George Washington's interactions with the Native Americans from the French and Indian War to his death in 1799. The book thoroughly addresses the inner conflicts our first president had about treating the Native Americans and the long chain of both intended and unintended consequences. Despite the harm inflicted on generations of Native Americans throughout the time period, at the time of George Washington's death, the Native Americans held him in high ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 21, 2019 Lindsey rated it really liked it

I enjoyed this one more than the other recent book on the same general subject. He seems to take a fairer approach with Washington without overlooking Washington's foibles . . . Washington comes across as pretty land-grubby. . . . It's hard to keep all the "players" straight so I just read for an overall impression, which was pretty much that everything is far more complicated than either "side" makes it out to be. The Indians themselves had so many in-group treaties and betrayals among themselv ...more

flag Like · see review