Allen Eckert is the kind of man that I would have loved to go camping with. Reading any of his books, hell reading a single page of any of his books is enough to know that he would have had enough stories to tell long into the night. I’m sure I would listen, wondering whether the stories were true but nonetheless being heartily entertained.
That’s the tone he strikes in most of his books. Eckert was a prolific writer but his most well known works were his books on the American Frontier, specifically his Winning of America series. This is one of those book series that I have always been drawn to but have never felt that I’ve had sufficient time to tackle. Well as often happens with unemployment, I have had plenty of time to fill so I decided to pick up one of his books. The cheapest one I could find on ebay was Wilderness Empire .
Wilderness Empire , though second in the series is the first to occur chronologically, cover the great contest between the French and English for control of North America, beginning with the relatively minor King George’s War and climaxing with the titanic struggle that was the French and Indian War. Although The Frontiersman is the first in the series, it falls much later in the chronology of the series; my guess is that Eckert decided only later to make a series out of his premise but I digress.
Now, one thing I’ve never been able to decipher is whether these books are meant to be taken as fact or fiction. I’ve seen a lot of people call these books “novels” which isn’t a term applied to non-fiction yet Eckert asserts that the stories in his books are unembellished truth and the inclusion of chapter notes, appendices on Indian tribes, and sources seem to support that fact. Some of the claims made in the series have been, with improved scholarship, shown to be incorrect, though Eckert can’t really be blamed for this. His grave sin, in terms of historical writing, is his invented dialogue and some invented scenes, which he claims to have drawn either word for word or from exact sentiments found in historical documents. For example, even though there are no concrete known details about Pontiac’s life, Eckert still treats the reader to an incredibly vivid scene describing both
This is the thing you are going to have to accept if you want to enjoy these books. Honestly, I never found the dialogue that bad and there actually aren’t that many scenes of back and forth discussions. I did actually learn a lot from reading this book though I made sure to double check many of the “facts.” In doing so I found a few odd errors. Eckert describes the role of Little Turtle, a Miami warrior and later a central player in the Northwest Indian War, during the Raid on Pickawillany. He asserts that Little Turtle took over the tribe after their chief was killed by the raiders. This would have been difficult, however, as Little Turtle was born the same year as the raid. Truthfully, I don’t know how an error like that occurs.
The book also suffers from some slow parts and poor pacing. Every time Eckert had a page of italicized text from a letter, my eyes just glazed over. There are entire scenes of someone sitting down to write a letter, getting anxious writing a letter, getting angry writing a letter, etc. Some of these letters go on for pages in a row. He’s penchant for quoting letters and diaries in their entirety is at its worst during the French sections of the book. It’s beyond exhausting and, in my opinion, stupid considering how good Eckert is at setting a scene. I consider part of the reason he includes these is because they can be drawn exactly from the historical record; but if he is fictionalizing dialogue in some scenes, why not do that instead of including these letters.
There were a lot of parts of this book which could have been condensed and far more succinctly described. The first third of the book can be a slog at times and it takes a while to get going. And there are just so many scenes where the same characters say the same things over and over again. Truthfully, this book could have been like 50 pages shorter. There are also some favorite phrases of Eckert’s that just frustrate me. The repeated use of the term “long moment” is so annoying. Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? Also there is a very large emphasis on William Johnson’s, uhhh, sexual prowess? The stilted dialogue makes these moments unintentionally very funny.
That last bit was a little harsh. I actually enjoyed this book quite a bit. And once it gets going, it gets going. I flew through this fairly hefty volume in a week. Even keeping in mind what I said above, Eckert is just so easy to read. He doesn’t use any overly complex words or sentence structures. While he can be verbose at times, he can also be very economical with his words at others. His ability to describe scenes in almost ghoulish detail never failed to grab my attention.
Ghoulish is the right word too. There are plenty of scenes in here describing, in grim detail, scalping, beating, gauntlet running, the tearing out of beating hearts, eating of said hearts, shooting of hearts with arrows and musket balls, and in one particularly egregious moment, tearing a baby out of her mother’s womb with a knife and cannibalizing it. The frontier was a horrific place and Eckert seems to occasionally relish in that. It's horrifying but would a campfire story be without those bloody details?
There is enough humanity and excitement to balance out the horror as well. While there is an overarching story here, primarily focused on William Johnson (who is, as is accurately portrayed, a fascinating gentleman, this book is made up of moments, events, and anecdotes. Scenes of a young George Washington trying to survive the frigid wilderness were perhaps my favorite. Eckert does an exceptional job of putting you there. I also love how he lays the seeds for future stories. Pontiac plays a minor role in the story, Washington’s participation in the war is respectably described, and here and there are mentions of Simon Girty and Daniel Boone. I just love little details like that.
I think the thing I find most impressive about this book written all the way back in the 1960s is its even handedness. There are a few things that wouldn’t fly today, namely the repeated use of the term “squaw,” but Eckert very clearly asserts that the white settlers are wrongly stealing the Indians' land. There are many (many) sections where an Indian character will rail against the stealing of their land. The message, thankfully, has stood the test of time. Apart from that, there is a certain complexity on display too. I wouldn’t say their characters are complex per say (in fact, most of them fall into one of three categories: heroic, evil, or laughably stupid. Johnson is deified here, coming off as a near perfect mythical hero) but the factions they come from – French, British, American, and Indian – are not wholly dominated by heroes or villains.
As an aside, definitely get the 2001 editions of these books from the Jesse Stuart Foundation. The cover art is gorgeous and I can’t wait to have all six of these lined up on my shelf.
This book is excellent. It’s not perfect and the veracity can be occasionally suspect but it is damn entertaining. And, in all fairness, The history of the frontier has always been a colorful one with many embellishments. I think if you know what you’re getting yourself into, it's well worth your time. Sometimes it can be fun to just enjoy them. I also cannot recommend highly enough watching the documentary The War That Made America alongside this book; its a perfect companion.
I think I will try to read The Frontiersman next; as a native Kentuckian I think I’m obligated to.