Declarations of Independence: Encyclopedia of American Autonomous and Secessionist Movements

Declarations of Independence: Encyclopedia of American Autonomous and Secessionist Movements

James L. Erwin

Greenwood Press

Declarations of Independence

DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN AUTONOMOUS AND SECESSIONIST MOVEMENTS

James L. Erwin

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut

•

London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Erwin, James L., 1974– Declarations of independence : encyclopedia of American autonomous and secessionist movements / James L. Erwin p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–313–33267–3 (alk. paper) 1. United States—History—Autonomy and independence movements—Encyclopedias. 2. Secession— United States—Encyclopedias. 3. United States—Politics and government—Encyclopedias. 4. United States—Race relations—Encyclopedias. 5. United States—Ethnic relations—Encyclopedias. 6. Nationalism—United States—History—Encyclopedias. I. Title. E183.E79 2007 305.80097303—dc22 2006026198 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2007 by James L. Erwin All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006026198 ISBN: 0–313–33267–3 First published in 2007 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents Chronological Listing Preface Introduction

ix xiii xv

Acadia

1

Alaska

1

Alcatraz Nation

6

Ararat

8

Atlantis, Isle of Gold

9

Aztla´n

10

Beaver Island

15

Block Island

16

Boon Island

17

California

19

Carson’s Valley

27

Cherokee Nation

29

Chicago, State of

31

Cimarron Territory

32

Columbia, State of

33

Conch Republic

35

Cumberland Association

36

Dade County

37

Dakota

37

East Florida

45

Eastern Shore

48

vi

CONTENTS

Eastport, Maritime Republic of

50

Forgottonia

51

Franklin

52

Fremont, Artists’ Republic of

54

Galveston Island

55

Great Dismal Swamp

58

Hawaii

61

Huron Territory

67

Indian Stream, Republic of

69

Ishmaelites

71

Jefferson, State of

75

Jefferson Territory

76

Justus Township

77

Kentucky

79

Kinney

80

Lake Michigan, Free District of

83

Lincoln Territory (South Dakota)

84

Little Shell Pembina Band of North America

86

McDonald Territory

89

Madawaska, Republic of

89

Maine

91

Martha’s Vineyard

93

Miner’s Compact

94

Mohawk Nation

96

Mormons

99

Muscongus Island

106

Muskogee

107

Natchez

113

Negro Fort

114

New Afrika, Republic of

116

New England

121

CONTENTS

Newington

127

North Dakota

129

North Dumpling

131

Northwest Angle

132

Ontario

133

Oregon

135

Oyotunji

138

Paradise, Kingdom of

141

Puerto Rico

142

Rhode Island

149

Rough and Ready, Great Republic of

151

San Francisco

153

Sequoyah, State of

156

South, the

158

South Carolina

169

South Jersey

174

South Nebraska

175

Superior

177

Texas

179

Trans-Oconee Republic

193

Transylvania

194

Tri-Insula, Free City of

196

Vandalia

199

Vermont, Republic of

200

Washitaw

205

Watauga Association

206

West Florida

207

West Kansas

209

West Virginia

210

Whiskey Rebellion

211

Winneconne

216

vii

viii

CONTENTS

Winston County—also Free State of Winston

217

Wisconsin

219

Wyoming Valley

220

Selected Bibliography

225

Index

237

Chronological Listing

Cherokee Nation

c. 1450 to 1836

New England

1620 to present

Great Dismal Swamp

c. 1650-1865

Paradise, Kingdom of

1737-1743

Wyoming Valley

1769-1787

Vandalia

1772

Watauga Association

1772-1776

Transylvania

1775

Vermont, Republic of

1776-1791

Cumberland Association

1780-1781

Franklin

1784-1788

Kentucky

1787-1788

Rhode Island

1789-1790, civil war 1842

Trans-Oconee Republic

1790-1794

Muskogee

1792, 1800

Ontario

1793

Whiskey Rebellion

1794

Natchez

1797-1798

Ishmaelites

c. 1800-c. 1910

Barataria Bay (see Galveston)

1808-1817

West Florida

1810

Texas

1813, 1819, 1836-1846, 1861-1865

Republic of Florida (see East Florida. See also West Florida) 1814-1816 Negro Fort

1815-1816

Galveston Island

1815-1821

x

CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING

Maine

1825 to present

Fredonia, Republic of (see Texas)

1826

Miner’s Compact

1830-1833

Mormons

1830-1858

Indian Stream, Republic of

1832-1836

California

1846 to present

Aztla´n

1848 to present

Beaver Island

1848-1856

Eastern Shore

1850, 1998

Rough and Ready, Great Republic of

1850

Carson’s Valley

1851-1861

Dakota

1851 (Laramie Treaty) to present

San Francisco

(coup) 1856

South Nebraska

1856-1867

Jefferson Territory

1858-1861

South, the

1860 to present

Tri-Insula, Free City of

1860

Wisconsin

1860

Muscongus Island

1860-1934

Winston County—also Free State of Winston

West Virginia 1861 to present

Columbia, State of

1863, 1874

Lake Michigan, Free District of

1886-c. 1910

Cimarron Territory

1887

Hawaii

1898 to present

Puerto Rico

1898 to present

Sequoyah, State of

1902

North Dakota

1934

Jefferson, State of

1941

McDonald Territory

1961

Atlantis

1966

Winneconne

1967

New Afrika, Republic of

1968 to present

Abalonia (see Atlantis, Isle of Golf)

1969

Alcatraz Nation

1969-1971

Forgottonia

1973

Alaska

1974 to present

Martha’s Vineyard

1977

South Jersey

1980

CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING

Conch Republic

1982

Block Island

1984

Mohawk Nation

1990

North Dumpling

1992 to present

West Kansas

1992

Fremont, Artists’ Republic of

1994 to present

Republic of Texas—Interim Government (see Texas)

1995 to present

Justus Township

1996

Northwest Angle

1998

Acadia

1998 to present

Newington

2001

Boon Island

2003 to present

Little Shell Pembina Band of North America

2004 to present

xi

Preface This work covers nationalist, secessionist, and autonomist movements within the modern boundaries of the United States since the beginning of the American Revolution in 1775. I have excluded movements which did not aim to secure political independence as a nation or as a state. There is therefore no discussion of movements like the Amish or the communal movements of the nineteenth century. These movements are radically different social organizations than most American communities, but the vast majority have never expressed a political ambition to match their urge to social transformation. There is no discussion of secession movements based at the local level, such as the San Fernando Valley’s recent attempt to incorporate itself as a municipality separate from Los Angeles. I have also elected not to cover many Native American nations, for the simple reason that many Native American societies never organized themselves as a political state along Western lines until after the United States had subjugated them. Several Native American nations have revived their dreams of independence, and these recent movements do receive treatment. I began the research for this project in 1996. In the years since, I have incurred debts to many people who have helped to make this book possible. I thank Mike Hermann at Greenwood Press, who has steered this project through some difficult trials. I thank the University of Iowa for its invaluable research library, and all of my friends in Iowa City who encouraged me to work on this book. I thank my family for their love and their support. Most of all, I thank Jessica. Without you, this book and so much else in my life would have been impossible. I love you. This work is arranged as an encyclopedia, so that the movements are listed alphabetically. Each entry contains a short background history where possible, a discussion of each secessionist movement for the region or group under discussion, and a Further Reading section listing sources of information. Throughout the text, I have placed cross-references to other entries. Besides the table of contents, the list of movements by state and the chronological listing at the beginning of the book may be of help in locating a group. There is also a bibliography at the end of the book, and an index, which lists subject topics as well as the names of important movements, locations, and people.

xiv

PREFACE

I have turned to a number of sources in writing this book. In many cases, I have used primary documents, including first-hand accounts and periodical publications. For several entries, many of these primary documents have been posted on the Web by the participants or founders themselves. Wherever possible, I have cited all books or publications I have used in my research. All quotations are taken from public-domain works.

Introduction When the United States of America was founded, it was a radical experiment. In 1776, republics were held in low esteem. From Greece to Rome to Italy’s Renaissance city-states, republics were viewed as unstable and ineffective. Great Britain’s flirtation with republicanism had died with Oliver Cromwell. To govern a republic—especially one that stretched from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, surrounded by hostile Native Americans and colonial European nations— seemed a fool’s task. Somehow, the United States managed not only to survive, but to weather trials that have destroyed many other nations and governments throughout history to become the most powerful state in the world. This achievement was never foreordained, despite the lingering echoes of exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny in our national dialogue. At many points in American history, the survival of the United States as a unified entity was in manifest danger. In the early days of the American republic, the nation’s boundaries were illdefined and in many areas government was virtually absent. More than once, ambitious men strove to carve out kingdoms for themselves. On occasion, these petty republics were encouraged and manipulated behind the scenes by Washington, when the international situation demanded discretion. The Native American nations were also fighting fiercely for their survival. As the pressure of American settlement grew more intense, several responded by organizing themselves as nation-states. Escaped slaves found places of refuge. As their numbers grew, so too did their ambitions grow from mere survival to a war of liberation. Hundreds of autonomous communities, mostly short-lived, were established between the American Revolution and the American Civil War, their appeal resting on widespread dissatisfaction with the intense competition of the new urban capitalism and the growing reach of American government. Some movements, like the Mormons and the Confederacy, attempted to separate themselves from the current of American history. Other groups, like the commune at Oneida or the disciples of Emerson and Thoreau, attempted to press for change by living as an example. Many simply tried to move further into the wilderness, avoiding the cascading intrusions of society. Challenges to American unity did not merely occur on the nation’s political and social fringes, however. In several cases, American state and local governments defied the federal government over the very definition of the nation. That defiance came to its logical conclusion in the American Civil War. In the wake of that cataclysmic event, it appeared that the threat of secessionism was

xvi

INTRODUCTION

forever dead. The federal government was stronger than ever, and had forcefully demonstrated its will to fight those who would secede. The society that emerged from the crucible of the Civil War was much different from the one that came before it. Many people had identified with local groups over the nation, calling themselves New Yorkers or Virginians or Ohioans. Now, instead of a federation of sovereign states, a single nation emerged, and a new consensus. The United States moved quickly and decisively to secure control over the land it claimed in the West, subduing the last independent Native Americans in a series of sharp, brutal wars. The railroad and the telegraph collapsed distances that had isolated many communities. When the historian Frederick Jackson Turner declared in 1893 that the frontier was closed, he shocked the nation. For the first time, American history was not viewed as the logical development of European political theory. The century since the nation’s founding was now seen as the closing of a uniquely American history’s first chapter—and there was little doubt at the time that a single people had been woven out of the various strands of American society. For a century, the newly unified nation continued to gather strength. The acquisition of an overseas empire, the accumulation of vast wealth, and victory in a series of increasingly devastating wars underpinned this sense of pride and cohesion. However, the nation’s fracture lines were still there, under the surface. The most visible of these was the division between the rich and the poor. As the nation’s wealth increased, so too did the distance between those who were fortunate or determined enough to win that wealth and those who were not. The labor movement, virtually unknown in the world before the Civil War, grew in power and strength. More than once, American soldiers faced angry workers and fired on them to protect the social order of capitalism. The eventual victories of the strikers were bought at a high price. The most radical members of the labor movement—the International Workers of the World and the Communist Party—were bent on a fundamental change in American society. They were ruthlessly suppressed, and the reformist movement of the early twentieth century channeled the energy of reformists away from the radical groups. American victories in the First and Second World Wars seemed to seal the nation’s unity. There was still dissatisfaction, but it was marginal and easily ignored by the majority of Americans. The 1950s saw the pinnacle of this illusion. Locked in confrontation with the Soviet Union, the nation’s unity was never more loudly trumpeted. Enormous social pressure towards conformity sparked its own backlash, a growing rebellion that was soon to make itself heard. In the 1960s, a series of social and political upheavals made it plain that America’s fundamental divisions were still there. The trigger was the civil rights movement of the 1950s. Black Americans fought for their rights, and won significant victories. America was forced to examine its conscience and to reevaluate its ideas of unity and justice. As the civil rights movement pressed forward into the 1960s, the nation’s mood turned sour. The assassination of prominent reformers and the increasingly bitter and divisive war in Vietnam raised tensions between those comfortable with the existing order and groups determined to change it. The civil rights

INTRODUCTION

movement spawned black separatist organizations, and a plethora of new movements dedicated to winning concessions for a number of ethnic and social groups who had been left out of the idea of American unity. A number of Americans became disgusted with the idea of any government at all. Thousands withdrew from public life into short-lived communes, while others attempted to build libertarian paradises on the high seas. This explosion of debate over the very meaning of America continues today. The civil rights movement and its descendants spawned a movement of reaction. The battle of competing ideologies has grown increasingly bitter, with every electoral contest declared a referendum on America’s identity. State and local governments are defying federal law, including provisions of the Patriot Act, drug laws, and strictures against euthanasia. The militias of the political right are largely quiescent, but their ideas and followers are far from vanished. Leftist anarchists have largely abandoned controversial actions like 2000’s violent protests against the World Trade Organization’s Seattle meeting, but are little reconciled to the current political and economic order. Immigration and demographics promise a reshaping of American ethnicity unparalleled since the immigrant explosion of the early twentieth century. The nation’s intellectual landscape reflects its political confusion, as the Internet and the explosion of media fragment the national discourse. The present day is thus an excellent time to look back on the history of American secessionist movements, and reflect on the utter improbability that the United States would remain united through such a long and chaotic history. The nation’s unity was at many times neither guaranteed nor even likely, and it took luck as well as leaders of virtue and wisdom at critical moments. Such critical moments will come again, and new leaders will face the threat—and the opportunity—of new political crises and new secessionist movements. Another book will be written to supplant the one you hold now—hopefully later rather than sooner.

xvii

A Abalonia—see Atlantis, Isle of Gold. Absaroka—see Lincoln Territory (South Dakota). Acadia. Since Maine gained independence from Massachusetts, the northern interior of the state has often felt culturally and politically alienated from the coastal ports. This cultural divide is aggravated by the presence of a proportionally large French-speaking population in the north—descendants of Acadians who evaded deportation to Louisiana in the eighteenth century. In addition, the region is suffering from a lackluster economy, which many residents feel is due to the stifling influence of the state government. In 1998, Aroostook County’s state Representative Henry Joy introduced a bill in the Maine House of Representatives calling for the separation of northern Maine. While the bill died, many of his constituents liked the idea, and Representative Joy introduced the idea again in early 2005. Without much in the way of backing or organization, the bill’s supporters appear to be content to remain within Maine for the time being. This is not the first time northern Maine has attempted to make its own way. In 1817, local residents attempted to declare independence as the Republic of Madawaska. Further Reading Carrier, Paul. ‘‘Bill Calls For Close Look at Secession.’’ Maine News, March 2, 2005.

Akwesasne—see Mohawk Nation. Alaska. Alaska is the largest of the United States, at 586,412 square miles. It is more than twice the size of Texas. The state spans a vast distance—from its southeast end to the last of the Aleutian Islands, the state’s width is nearly equal to that of the continental United States. Despite the state’s Arctic reputation, large sections of the state, especially in the southern strip along the Pacific coast known as ‘‘The Panhandle,’’ are temperate in climate for much of the year. Much of the state’s population of 650,000 is concentrated in the southern regions.

2

ALASKA

Alaska Before European Contact Alaska has been occupied by humans longer than any other part of the Western Hemisphere. At several points during the Ice Ages, Alaska was physically connected to Asia when seawater was frozen in glaciers and the sea level consequently dropped. During one of these cold periods, humans crossed this land bridge from Siberia. The oldest widely accepted date for colonization of the Americas is approximately 11,000 years old, although some discoveries have suggested an earlier date. While there is still some dispute, it appears likely that all Native Americans are descended from this one group of pioneers. Today, four major groups of Native Americans form the state’s indigenous population. The Aleut are indigenous to the Aleutian Islands, which are named after them. They are related to the Inuit, although there are significant differences between the groups. The Aleut speak a western and eastern dialect. At the time of European discovery, the Aleut tribes were loosely organized. They lived in villages, near prime fishing and hunting grounds. The Inuit occupied nearly all of Alaska’s coast, aside from the southern region known as the Panhandle. Their culture is superbly adapted to the harsh conditions of the Arctic. Inuit bands are highly mobile, dependent on dogsleds over land and kayaks over sea. They live by harvesting fish, seals, and other animals from the sea. Their mobility and the harshness of the Arctic environment kept the Inuit from growing in numbers, or from organizing beyond extended families. Despite their small numbers, the Inuit controlled a vast region stretching from Greenland to the Bering Strait. In Alaska’s Panhandle, the Tlingit dominated the region, along with the culturally related Haida and Tsimshian. They lived in large villages, and their culture was focused on the sea. They were skilled coastal sailors, and they were able to gather enough food from the rich seas that intensive agriculture was unnecessary. The Athabascan tribes of the southern interior were skilled traders who controlled the passes through the Coast Mountains near the Pacific shore. They were vital conduits in trade between the Tlingit and the tribes of the interior, bringing oil, timber, and other coastal products east and south in exchange for furs, hides, and dyes. Their numbers were never great, and the Athabascan tribes of Alaska were often dominated by the numerous and well-organized Tlingit villages. Russian Alaska Europeans first visited Alaska in 1741. Vitus Bering, an explorer of Danish descent, served as a governor in Siberia. Under orders to explore the ocean beyond the Kamchatka Peninsula at the eastern end of Siberia, Bering stumbled upon the Aleutian Islands. Bering’s expedition ended in disaster. He and his men were stranded in the Aleutians through an Arctic winter, and most including Bering died. Only a few survivors returned in the spring, but they brought back a valuable cargo of furs. Soon, new expeditions were launched and the Russians were firmly established throughout the islands. They decimated the fur-bearing animals, and came into harsh conflict with the native Aleuts. In 1762, the Aleuts launched a revolt that lasted four years.

ALASKA

Thousands were killed. Thousands more had already died from disease. Within two generations of the first arrival of the Russians, the Aleut population plummeted from 30,000 to 3,000. The continuing decline of the fur trade in the Aleutians led to further exploration and an attempt to develop new economic opportunities. In 1784, the Russians founded their first permanent settlement in Alaska at Kodiak Island. The colony gained more attention in St. Petersburg as British, American, French, and Spanish ships began to enter the area in hopes of profiting from the fur trade. Russian Alaska took another step forward when Alexander Baranov arrived as its new governor. Baranov was an able and energetic administrator, and quickly took steps to improve the colony’s economy. He struck an informal alliance with American traders to the south. The Americans supplied Alaska with guns and trade goods, while Baranov sent Aleuts south to help the Americans gather furs. Both parties profited, to the detriment of the British Northwest Company in western Canada and the Spanish in California. The largest problem left to Baranov was the dilemma of food. Agriculture in Alaska was difficult at best. He solved this by leasing Fort Rossiya (or Fort Ross) from the Spanish, near the present location of San Francisco. Fort Ross never thrived—wheat did not grow well there, and the fort’s cattle were poached by Indians and eaten by wolves. In 1815, the Russians attempted to solve this problem by founding a settlement in Hawaii, but this failed after opposition from the Hawaiians and the British. After the arrival of the Hudson’s Bay Company in the region, the Russians bought food from them and sold Fort Ross to an enterprising California businessman, John Sutter, in 1841. The Russian position in Alaska continued to deteriorate. The fur trade suffered as animal populations were decimated throughout Alaska. Russia was now hemmed in by rival nations. The development of British interests in China hurt the Russian markets there. Political problems matched these economic woes–the Crimean War made it plain that Russia could not defend this distant colony. There were periodic hints that Alaska contained gold. It was obvious that a gold rush would overwhelm the Russians and that keeping the colony was no longer politically or economically feasible. Russia, anxious to counterbalance British power, hinted to the United States that it would sell Alaska in 1861. The final treaty had to wait for the end of the Civil War. In 1867, the United States bought Alaska for $7.2 million. Territorial Alaska After the United States acquired title to Alaska, it was slow to develop much interest in the region. The territory was placed under military government. Few settlers migrated north, and many of the territory’s Russian inhabitants returned to Russia. In 1880, the territory had just 435 non-Native American inhabitants. Many of Alaska’s residents worked in the fisheries, or in the territory’s first salmon cannery. Douglas Island, west of Juneau, was the site of Alaska’s first mine. The mineral veins here drew several thousand immigrants. More salmon canneries opened in the 1890s, bringing new jobs and new settlers.

3

4

ALASKA

The influx of immigrants excited the imaginations of some local leaders. As the Juneau region developed and attracted new residents, many felt that the rest of the vast territory was slowing their inevitable statehood. At the same time, many older residents resented the new arrivals. These new arrivals threatened old political alliances, economic arrangements, and perhaps most importantly they threatened the independence and isolation many Alaskans coveted. Petitions began circulating in the Yukon valley in 1897 which called for the creation of a new Lincoln Territory. The new territory would separate mainland Alaska from the southern coast and Panhandle. Events in the next year would soon overshadow this movement. In 1898, gold was discovered in the Klondike Valley in the Alaska Panhandle. The Tlingit tribe had prevented miners from exploring their territory for years, but this time the riches were too great to be hidden. Huge numbers of prospectors arrived within months. While thousands left when the easy pickings were gone, thousands more stayed—many to sift sand on the beaches near Nome for more gold. By 1900, Alaska’s immigrant population had skyrocketed from a few hundred to over 30,000. The Native American population was now outnumbered for the first time. Most of the new immigrants settled in the southern Panhandle, where the climate was less harsh. This increasing population soon gave the city of Juneau a stranglehold on territorial politics. The rest of Alaska grew increasingly irate over Juneau’s domination, while the Panhandle’s residents were more than willing to separate from Alaska’s vast and unprofitable hinterland. They were not the first: Secretary of State Seward had expected his purchase to become three or four states. The completion of the Alaska Railroad connecting the territory to the continental U.S. brought a great deal of excitement to the territory in 1923, when Warren Harding became the first President to visit Alaska and dedicate the railroad’s northern terminus. Touring the territory, he gave a speech on July 23 that electrified his audience. In part, he said: ‘‘As a matter of fact, in a very few years we can well set off the Panhandle and a large block of the connecting southeastern part as a State.’’ The town leaders of Ketchikan in the Panhandle lost no time in responding. They summoned a convention of delegates from the southeast to discuss separating the Panhandle from Alaska and forming a new government. The convention vote was overwhelmingly in favor. The delegates chose the name South Alaska for their new government, and sent a note requesting reorganization to Congress in November. South Alaska died a quiet death in committee there, when the House of Representatives bluntly rejected the expense of two territorial governments for Alaska. The arrival of the Depression ended any further speculation on dividing Alaska. Alaska’s statehood movement gained a large boost from the Second World War. Massive amounts of military aid and personnel arrived. The Al-Can Highway was built, the first paved highway between Alaska and the continental United States. The beginning of the Cold War led to the construction of new military bases in Alaska, aimed at the Soviet Union. In 1946, a referendum showed that 60% of the territory’s residents wanted statehood. Again, Congress

ALASKA

refused to act—the Senate was reluctant to dilute its power and admit two new members from a state with such a small population. In addition, many Alaskans were loudly opposed to statehood, and the increased tax burden it would mean. Statehood proponents responded by organizing and preparing for another attempt. As the statehood movement continued to stall, suggestions were made again of separating the southeast from the rest of Alaska. Others wanted to make Alaska a Commonwealth. Neither option garnered much support. Statehood gained momentum with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s election as President. He was eager to admit a state which he believed would vote solidly Republican. Finally, a constitutional convention was held in 1956, and statehood granted in 1959. Statehood and Separatism The new state of Alaska found itself tangled in messy politics from the beginning. The statehood bill granted the state 103 million acres of federal land. The state’s choices outraged Native Americans, whose claims overlapped the state’s. This conflict led several smaller activist groups to join together and organize the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1965. The federal government lent a sympathetic ear, and the following year Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall ordered further land conveyances frozen. This development angered many Alaskans, who considered the federal intervention overbearing. These developments were overshadowed by the 1967 discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay. Oil companies had been exploring the region for twenty years before the discovery. Soon, the oil field’s magnitude became apparent. It was the largest oil deposit in North America, and one of the largest in the world. Alaska suddenly found itself rich. As the state’s coffers began to swell, the Alaska Federation of Natives became increasingly adamant in demanding their fair share. In 1971, Congress stepped in. All Alaska native land claims were considered settled by the act. The U.S. government paid $1 billion in reparations, acknowledged native title to 44 million acres of land, and set up development corporations for the tribes. This was followed by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which set another 53 million acres aside as nature reserves and national parkland. Alaskans were outraged by these acts. To their mind, Alaskan land was theirs to do with as they pleased. The state legislature set up an exploratory committee to report on the viability of an independent Alaska. The committee’s report was not enthusiastic, but many Alaskans refused to give up the idea. Alaska’s oil wealth has helped to encourage the dream of independence. $30 billion in revenue from the oil fields rests in the Alaska Permanent Fund, which grants the state and its citizens significant economic independence. The state has no income tax. Few Alaskans are upset by this, but some argue that this has led many citizens to take little interest in state policy. The low visibility of state politics highlights the continuing role that the federal government plays in Alaska, through its control of much of the land and the economy’s dependence on federal spending. The most obvious sign of this secessionist sentiment is the Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP). Founded in the 1970s, the AKIP ran their first candidate in

5

6

ALCATRAZ NATION

1974 and is the largest third party in Alaska. Three to four percent of Alaska’s registered voters identify with the AKIP, but their candidates often receive a higher percentage of the vote than this. The AKIP’s most prominent politician is Wally Hickel, who served a term as governor in the 1960s as a Republican. In 1990, he ran again for governor under the AKIP’s banner and won. He unapologetically called for the exploitation of Alaska’s resources and the development of an economy which could stand without federal subsidies. In 1992, Alaskan Native American groups were so angered over Hickel’s apparent disregard for their land rights and his appetite for development that Prudhoe Bay’s Aleuts began investigating the possibility of secession. Hickel, in the meantime, launched an ultimately unsuccessful $29 billion lawsuit against the federal government to gain control back of Alaskan lands. Hickel eventually renounced secession and switched back to the Republican Party shortly before leaving office in 1994. Since Hickel’s departure, the AKIP has been frustrated by its stagnant performance. Today, the AKIP is reaching out to Alaskan natives. It remains to be seen whether an alliance of Alaskan libertarians and Native Americans can hold together or whether that alliance can create a lasting change in Alaska politics. Further Reading Alaskan Independence Party. Alaskan Independence Party. 2006. http://www. akip.org Haycox, Stephen. Alaska: An American Colony. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2002. Hulley, Clarence C. Alaska Past and Present, Third Edition. Portland, OR: Binfords and Mort, 1970. Naske, Claus M. A History of Alaska Statehood. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985. Norris, Frank B. Legacy of the Gold Rush: An Administrative History of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Seattle, WA: Government Printing Office, 1996. Rice, Dan. ‘‘AIP Updates Its Image.’’ Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 14, 2004. San Francisco Chronicle. ‘‘Alaska Accuses U.S. of ‘Taking’ Park Lands.’’ San Francisco Chronicle, July 24, 1993. San Francisco Chronicle. ‘‘Alaska’s Rural Areas Consider Breaking Away.’’ San Francisco Chronicle, July 3, 1992.

Alcatraz Nation. In the wake of the civil rights movement and the turmoil that spread throughout America in the 1960s came an organized attempt to raise Native American awareness and autonomy. Furious over centuries of mistreatment, broken promises, and poverty, Native American activists demanded immediate attention to their complaints. Activists across America and of all tribes and nations called for reform of the corrupt and moribund Bureau of Indian Affairs. They called for effective federal aid, control over their own economies and destinies, and for the simple respect which had so often been lacking in relations between the Native American nations and the federal

ALCATRAZ NATION

government. Most of all, they organized to resist 1953’s House Resolution 108, which announced the ‘‘Termination Policy.’’ The policy called for the dissolution of recognized tribes and the sell-off of the remaining Indian lands. This action, more than any other, served to spur Indian activism. Alcatraz Island, a forbidding island off the coast of San Francisco, served as a federal fort and prison from 1850 until 1933, when it became notorious as ‘‘The Rock,’’ a maximum-security prison designed to hold the nation’s most violent and dangerous criminals. In 1963, the prison was closed and its inmates moved to new cells on the mainland—the island was simply too remote to manage and sustain feasibly. Over the next few months, the fate of Alcatraz was a regular topic of discussion in San Francisco. The discussion changed tack sharply on March 9, 1964, when five Dakota activists landed on the island and claimed it under their interpretation of a federal treaty with the Dakota, promising that surplus federal land would revert to the Indians. They demanded that Alcatraz be made into a Native American cultural center and university. Federal marshals removed the activists, but the Alcatraz occupation made headlines nationwide, and the island was now a symbol of the Native American renaissance. A second and much more diverse group was led by Richard Oakes, and landed on November 9, 1969. They left after a few hours, but Oakes returned on November 20 with 90 fellow activists. Faced with federal demands to evacuate the island, the activists offered to buy the island for 24 dollars and some beads, in a sarcastic echo of the purchase of Manhattan. The federal government prepared to reoccupy the island, but public opinion prevented the use of force. Over the next few months, the government decided to negotiate with Oakes, rejecting his demand for ownership of Alcatraz by his group, the Indians of All Tribes, and also rejecting his call for fulfillment of the 1964 demands through development of a museum, cultural center, and university. The movement on the island began to fragment, especially after January of 1970 when many of the original occupiers returned to their universities and were replaced by a variety of countercultural hangers-on, from hippies to Hell’s Angels. On January 5, Oakes’s 13-year-old stepdaughter fell to her death, and Oakes left Alcatraz. A group calling itself the ‘‘Alcatraz Security Force’’ (ASF), however, was still there. As the occupation continued, the ASF became increasingly overbearing and protective of its spurious authority. The occupation was running out of steam. Sensing a turn in public opinion as the occupation’s initial optimism and idealism faded, the government shut off electrical power and water. The occupation limped into 1971, when news stories emerged that the occupiers, desperate to maintain themselves, were stripping copper wiring and other valuable property from the island’s buildings. The Alcatraz Nation’s last reservoir of public sympathy was used up, and the government finally arrested fifteen holdouts on June 10, ending the occupation. While the Alcatraz occupation failed in its primary goal, it did serve as a symbol and helped both to energize Native American activism and provide invaluable sympathy among the general population.

7

8

AMELIA ISLAND

Further Reading Delgado, James. Alcatraz Island: The Story Behind the Scenery. Las Vegas: KC Publications, 1987. National Park Service. ‘‘Alcatraz Island.’’ 2002. http:/www.nps.gov/alcatraz/

Amelia Island—see East Florida. Apalachicola Bay—see Negro Fort. Ararat. In the early nineteenth century, it could be argued that Mordecai Noah was the most famous Jew in the United States. Born in 1785, he rose rapidly in diplomatic service, serving as a consul in Riga and Tunis. Noah gained this post through a persuasive letter he sent to Secretary of State James Monroe in 1811, arguing that his appointment abroad would serve as an invaluable advertisement of America’s egalitarian and unbiased spirit. After his time overseas, he returned to New York, where he was elected sheriff, and then a judge. He also served as editor, at various times, of six different newspapers. Noah rapidly gained prominence as the spokesman of New York’s, and later America’s, Jewish community. As both a devout Jew and as a fervently patriotic American, he was able to serve as an ideal bridge between the two cultures. He also, somehow, found the time to dabble in playwriting. In 1818, at the age of 33, Noah declared that ‘‘never were prospects for the restoration of the Jewish nation . . .more brilliant than they are at present.’’ He decided that no one was better suited than himself to make sure that his vision came to pass. Two years later, he began negotiations to purchase a tract on Grand Island, a 27-square-mile island near Buffalo at the head of the Erie Canal, then under construction. During this time, Noah kept up his involvement in politics, but much of his political capital evaporated when he backed Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford for the Presidency in 1824. Crawford was a strong candidate at first, but was stricken by paralysis during the campaign. Temporarily out of favor, Noah spent much of his time raising funds and attracting investors. In 1825, he finally acquired the funds to purchase his land. Noah rented a Buffalo church for the grand inauguration of his enterprise. After a cannonade and the arrival of the Seneca chief Red Jacket (Noah would in 1837 publish a book arguing that the Native Americans were the Lost Tribes of Israel), Noah appeared dramatically in a Renaissance costume borrowed from Buffalo’s Park Theater, and declared Grand Island the City of Ararat. He then declared himself the ‘‘Judge of Israel.’’ He called on all Jews worldwide to send taxes to Ararat, and asked the Paris Jewish Consistory to elect a new Judge–after Noah completed his term, naturally. The reaction was as immediate as Noah had hoped—but not nearly as kind. Jewish leaders denounced Noah’s project as arrogant and presumptuous, and newspapers across the world called him a charlatan. Unable to attract any American Jews, or to recruit agents to advertise in Europe, Noah threw in the towel quickly. By the end of 1825, he told his friends not to invest. In 1833, he sold his land on Grand Island to a timber merchant.

ATLANTIS, ISLE OF GOLD

Noah went back to New York, where he remained an advocate for the Jewish people, and urged the resettlement of Palestine until his death in 1851. It has been suggested that while Noah’s dream did not inspire many Jews, his vision of a new Promised Land in America and his belief that the Native Americans were Hebrews may have helped to inspire Joseph Smith’s new Mormon religion. Further Reading Feldberg, Michael. ‘‘Noah’s Second Landing at Ararat.’’ In Blessings of Freedom, 206–7,. New York: American Jewish Historical Society, 2002. Karp, Abraham J. From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the Library of Congress. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1991. Roth, Marshall. ‘‘Jewish Homeland in Western New York?’’ Aliyon, May 2000.

Aroostook County—see Acadia. Atlantis, Isle of Gold. In 1962, a series of newspaper advertisements appeared in the United States and Great Britain. Paid for by Florida businessman William T. Anderson, they solicited for investors in a rather interesting project. Anderson’s advertisement called attention to the Grand and Triumph Reefs, off the southeast coast of Florida and outside the territorial waters of the United States. He announced his intention to build a platform on the reefs, and to declare it an independent nation. Anderson was unable to raise much money, and sold the concept to a group of entrepreneurs organized as the Atlantis Development Corporation. Atlantis immediately launched a large effort to win official recognition for their claims. Both the state of Florida and the U.S. Department of the Interior refused to rule on the issue. On November 9, 1962, the U.S. State Department issued a ruling that the reefs were in international waters. The news electrified the investors. The Atlantis corporation poured thousands of dollars into buildings on the reefs, and announced their intention to construct a huge platform–Atlantis, Isle of Gold. Atlantis was to be a tax shelter and offshore banking haven. The work was halted temporarily in September of 1963, when a hurricane heavily damaged the beginnings of Atlantis’s structure. A much more serious threat emerged the next year. Louis Ray, a real estate developer, filed a request to build a 20-acre artificial island in the Grand and Triumph Reefs. He planned to create his own nation there, the Grand Capri Republic, and turn it into a resort destination. The U.S. government issued an injunction against Ray, contending that it had the legal authority to prevent construction on the continental shelf. The Atlantis Corporation, which had already sunk (literally) thousands of dollars into the reefs, intervened and asked the U.S. government to sue Ray for trespass. The case, U.S. v. Ray, grew into an extremely complex tangle of counter-suits and appeals. The simple question of trespass now threatened the ownership claims of both Ray and Atlantis. The legal battle ended in 1970, when the U.S. Court of Appeals decided that international law gave the U.S. legal authority over the continental shelf regardless of ownership.

9

10

´N AZTLA

While U.S. v. Ray worked its complicated way through the court system, other plans had been conceived on the West Coast. Anderson’s original call for investors had spawned imitators. A group of investors filed a request in 1966 with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey to construct an artificial island on the Cortes Bank, an area of shallow water about 110 miles west of San Diego. They planned to declare the island the Republic of Taluga. The Army Corps of Engineers intervened and refused to grant permission, and the Taluga project was suspended while the investors waited to learn the outcome of U.S. v. Ray. While the Taluga backers waited, another group of entrepreneurs from San Diego decided to act. They purchased a Second World War-vintage ship, the U.S.S. Jalisco, which was basically a 300-foot long concrete slab. The Jalisco was to become the Republic of Abalonia. The investors planned to use Abalonia as a processing plant for shellfish and lobsters, which would of course be tax-free. Abalonia nearly came to fruition. The investors had the concrete barge towed into position, and opened stopcocks to flood the ship. The plan was to sink the barge at the shallowest point of the Cortes Bank, about six feet underwater, in order to form the foundation of the new nation. However, a mooring rope came loose and the barge foundered, nearly swamping the boat the Jalisco’s crew had evacuated to. The nation of Abalonia came to rest hundreds of feet away in considerably deeper water, and is now a thriving artificial reef. The failure of these projects failed to daunt a number of imitators. The 1960s and 1970s saw a number of other platform nation-building projects across the world, most notably a 1972 attempt to construct the libertarian utopia of Minerva in unclaimed waters east of Tonga. These attempts generated a small body of work interpreting the international Law of the Sea. Under the current reading of international law, it is impossible for an artificial landmass to claim territorial waters, or to become an independent nation. It is likely, therefore, that the age of the platform nations has ended without ever starting. Further Reading Cox, Noel. ‘‘Tax and Regulatory Avoidance Through Non-Traditional Alternatives to Tax Havens.’’ New Zealand Business Law Quarterly, Fall 2003. Kardol, Rene. Proposed Inhabited Artificial Islands in International Waters: International Law Analysis in Regards to Resource Use, Law of the Sea and Norms of Self-Determination and State Recognition. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1999. Menefee, Samuel Pyatt. ‘‘Republics of the Reefs: Nation-Building on the Continental Shelf and in the World’s Oceans.’’ California Western International Law Journal 25 (1994): 81. Papadakis, Nikos. The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands. Leyden, Netherlands: Sifthoff International Publishing, 1977. United States v. Ray, Atlantis Development Corporation, Ltd., Intervenor. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 27888. 1970.

Aztla´n. The United States has long had a complicated relationship with its Spanish-speaking neighbors, starting with confrontations with Spain over Louisiana, the Natchez Strip, West Florida, and East Florida. After the last of those

´N AZTLA

lands fell into American hands with the Adams-Onı´s Treaty of 1819, the United States was left with a new border between Texas and Mexico, which was soon to become an independent nation. As American settlers moved west, they filtered into what is now the American Southwest and what was then a sparsely settled Mexican claim. At the time of the Mexican War, none of the southwestern states had a large Mexican population. In Texas, the tejano Spanish-speaking population numbered in the thousands, but was outnumbered by the recent English-speaking immigrants. The humiliations of the Texan War of Independence and the Mexican War weighed heavily on those Mexicans who found themselves within the borders of the United States. Despite some initial attempts at accommodation, relations soon soured. Mexican dignitaries participated in the drafting of California’s state constitution, but they were pushed aside as a flood of American prospectors arrived during the 1849 Gold Rush. In New Mexico and Arizona, Spanishspeaking communities were ordered about by appointed governors. In Texas, the revolutionary government had at first courted the tejanos. However, the constant border warfare of the 1830s and 1840s had taken its toll on mutual goodwill. Suspecting that the Mexicans were plotting with slaves to take over the state, several counties forced Mexicans to leave at gunpoint in 1856. Mexican landowners fared poorly elsewhere in the southwest as well. Competition from the Great Plains eroded the profits of the California ranchers, and Mexican land titles were disputed. Within a decade, most of the Mexican estates had been dismantled by expropriation or foreclosure. The Mexicans remained a small minority until 1924, when the federal government enacted immigration quotas, restricting the number of new immigrants from Europe and Asia. However, no quotas were placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Large numbers of Mexicans had already moved north into the United States, especially after the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The new immigration laws required Mexicans to provide documentation for the first time, and the first deportations of illegal immigrants began. This deportation movement gathered impetus after the Great Depression began in 1929. During the 1930s, half a million Mexicans were forced to leave the country, including legal immigrants and members of families that had lived in the Southwest for centuries. The beginning of the Second World War and a sudden labor shortage ended the movement. Soon, the federal government was actively encouraging Mexican immigration, under the Bracero Program. The braceros, Mexican laborers, were allowed to enter the United States. Most worked in agriculture. The program was officially ended in 1964, due to decreased demand for farmhands and labor union opposition. The braceros were joined by a vast number of undocumented immigrants. Between 1947 and 1955, over four million undocumented immigrants were deported to Mexico, although millions more remained. Mexican-American Activism The growing number of Mexican-Americans and their continued lack of political and economic power meant that they were anxious to join the growing

11

12

´N AZTLA

civil rights movement. Advocacy groups and political alliances had been around for decades, but they scored their first real victories in the 1960s, when the Political Association of Spanish-Speaking Organizations helped MexicanAmericans win elected office in several Texas cities and counties. In the west, Ce´sar Cha´vez organized the Farm Workers Association, which grew into the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC). UFWOC led a fiveyear strike against conditions of near-slavery in California agriculture, and won significant concessions and public attention. Despite these advances, the condition of Mexican-American life was still far from satisfactory. Illiteracy, poverty, and crime continued to take a heavy toll on the community’s well-being. In addition, many Mexican-Americans were angered over the perceived injustice of having to live as aliens in land taken from their ancestors. A number of more confrontational groups, such as the Brown Berets and the United Mexican Students, were founded in the southwest during the 1960s. In 1963, Reies Lo´pez Tijerina organized the Alianza Federal de Mercedes (AFM), who demanded the return of federal lands in the southwest and the creation of a new nation, Aztla´n. Aztla´n was the name of the Aztec homelands, before their migration into Mexico a thousand years ago. Modern MexicanAmerican activists often apply it to the former Mexican lands of the Southwest, as the name has a special resonance. Confrontations between the AFM and police occurred several times in the mid-1960s, as Mexican-Americans attempted to occupy land throughout the Southwest. In 1966, Rodolfo Go´nzales founded an allied group, La Crusada para La Justicia. Go´nzales called for a UN-sponsored plebiscite and the creation of a Mexican-American nation. One of Tijerina’s most audacious exploits was the October 1966 occupation of the Kit Carson National Forest, which he declared the Republic of San Joaqu´in del Rı´o Chama. He was arrested and expelled. The next year, Tijerina led an armed assault on a courthouse to free several of his followers. Arrested, Tijerina spent most of the 1970s in jail and renounced violence. Inspired by the Alianza and by the American Indian occupation of Alcatraz Island, the Brown Berets occupied Santa Catalina Island off the California coast in August of 1972 and declared that it had not been ceded by the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo at the end of the Mexican War. They obeyed a police order to evacuate a month later. Shortly thereafter, the Brown Berets collapsed amid infighting. The 1970s saw the foundation of the Congreso de Aztla´n, which hoped to coordinate the radical activist movements. However, factionalism prevented the Congreso from uniting the radicals. In fact, many of the smaller groups were moving from nationalism to revolutionary Marxism, something which many Aztla´ n nationalists had no patience with. By 1979, the Congreso was defunct. Today, the Aztla´n movement is largely quiescent, although the idea of Aztla´n has taken root in Mexican-American culture. The idea of separating from the United States as Aztla´n or as the Republica del Norte has lost some of its appeal as Mexican-American numbers and political power continue to grow quickly.

´N AZTLA

Today, Hispanic people are the largest minority group in the United States. Over 40 million Hispanics reside in the United States, half of them in California and Texas. This number has increased more than 50 percent since 1990. In addition, the Hispanic population is growing much faster than other segments of the U.S. population, and household income has also increased–over 40 percent of Hispanic households earn more than $40,000 annually, versus less than 30 percent in 1994. It is possible that as Hispanics continue to gain strength, they will become assimilated into American life as other immigrant groups have in the past. It is also possible that the growing Hispanic population will lead to a rebirth of the assertive Aztla´n movement and a new Hispanic separatism. Further Reading Cha´vez, Ernesto. ‘‘¡Mi Raza Primero!’’ (My People First): Nationalism, Identity, and Insurgency in the Chicano Movement in Los Angeles, 1966-1978. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002. Cha´vez, John R. The Lost Land: The Chicano Image of the Southwest. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1984. Rosales, F. Arturo. Chicano! The History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press, 1996.

13

B Barataria Bay—see Galveston Island. Beaver Island. Beaver Island sits in northeast Lake Michigan, about 20 miles off the shore of western Michigan. About 40 square miles in size, the earliest record of human activity on Beaver Island is over 2,000 years old. The Ottawa tribe settled on Beaver Island perhaps 300 years ago. European traders and trappers arrived around the turn of the nineteenth century, and soon the island was the hub of the area’s economy, thanks to a rich fishery and thriving forests, as well as an excellent harbor. Most of the island’s inhabitants were settled in the north at Whiskey Point, a settlement of around 100 in the mid-nineteenth century when James Strang arrived. Strang was an early leader in the Mormon church. A former lawyer, his oratory and presence impressed Joseph Smith when Strang converted in 1844. Smith assigned Strang to build a presence for the Mormon church in Wisconsin. After Smith’s murder by a mob in June of that year, Strang produced a forged letter from Joseph Smith which proclaimed Strang the new leader of the Mormons. Brigham Young, another leader in the church with a more organized following, challenged the document. While most of the church followed Brigham Young west to Deseret, nearly 3,000 Mormons chose to accept Strang as the church’s leader. After gathering up his followers at Nauvoo, Strang led them north to Voree (later Spring Prairie), Wisconsin. After a short stay there, Strang decided in 1848 to move to Beaver Island. Strang’s Mormon church was extremely strict. Meat was forbidden, materialism was heavily discouraged, and Strang imposed a tight code of sexual morality, including an opposition to polygamy that had helped create the schism between him and Brigham Young. The numbers of the Mormon immigrants overwhelmed the existing settlement, and Strang was shortly elected to the state legislature. At this time, despite his stricture against polygamy, he took a second wife, Elvira Field, in secret. She posed in public as his male secretary. Tensions rose steadily with the island’s inhabitants, which led to the 1850 ‘‘War of Whiskey Point,’’ which the Mormons ended by firing a cannon into the town’s trading post. After this, most of the island’s non-Mormon population left. The victory went to Strang’s head. Isolated and in complete control of his flock, Strang soon succumbed to the temptations of power. Strang had himself crowned King James I of ‘‘The Kingdom of God on Earth’’ on July 8, 1850, and anointed several of his lieutenants as nobility. He ordered the county treasurer

16

BEN ISHMAEL

to collect tithes from all residents of the island, Mormon and non-Mormon alike. This was too much for Michigan’s Governor Bingham, who had carefully cultivated the bloc of votes Strang controlled. In May of 1851, a U.S. Navy gunboat landed at Beaver Island, and Strang was escorted to Detroit to stand trial for counterfeiting, tampering with mail, tax evasion, and other charges. Over the course of three weeks, Strang served as his own defense attorney, and defeated all charges. Stronger than ever, Strang returned to Beaver Island, where he was re-elected to the legislature. While he served with distinction in Lansing, his control at home was tightening. By this time, he had five wives and twelve children, but still punished his followers for practicing polygamy, and for other crimes such as dress code violation. Finally, two disgruntled followers led a mob of 40 men to assassinate Strang in June of 1856. Despite several gunshot wounds, Strang managed to live for another three weeks. The Mormon settlement erupted into chaos. While the community fell apart, land speculators in Michigan egged on a mob of local settlers to expel the Mormons. While U.S. Navy gunboats watched, the Beaver Island settlement was burned down on July 3, 1856, and the Mormons sent into exile. Strang died five days later. While some stayed in the Midwest, many more fled to Utah. The speculators seized the island, claiming it had been settled illegally, and promptly made vast profits off the land the Mormons had cleared and planted. Further Reading Beaver Island Historical Society. A Short History of Beaver Island. 2003. Dwyer, Jim, editor. Strange Stories, Amazing Facts of America’s Past. Pleasantville, NY: Reader’s Digest General Books, 1989. Nolan, Jenny. ‘‘The King of Beaver Island.’’ The Detroit News. 2002. http:// info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=81&category=life

Ben Ishmael—see Ishmaelites. Black Hills, Confederacy of the—see Dakota. Block Island. Block Island is a small island 12 miles off the coast of the state of Rhode Island. The islanders, like many other residents of small isolated communities, maintain a fierce sense of independence. During the War of 1812, Block Island was cut off from the mainland by British blockade. Desperate to maintain their livelihood and angered by the inability of the U.S. Navy to protect them, Block Island’s citizens declared their neutrality in the war. In 1984, the residents again flirted with independence, threatening to secede from Rhode Island. The cause of this anger was mopeds. Every summer, tourists have long traveled to Block Island. The tourist industry exploded in the late 1970s, with over 10,000 visitors arriving every weekend. A moped rental business grew along with the tourist industry—the small motorbikes were a convenient way to get around the island’s narrow roads.

BOON ISLAND

This development infuriated Block Island’s 620 residents. The mopeds were noisy, annoying and increasingly dangerous. The number of people injured in moped accidents quickly grew, and each accident required evacuating someone to a mainland hospital. In 1981, Block Island’s town council banned mopeds. Rhode Island’s Supreme Court declared the ban unconstitutional. The town’s civic leaders then asked the State Senate to pass a bill giving Block Island the authority to ban mopeds, but the bill died in committee. Block Island decided to press its case in a more firm manner, setting a vote for secession. The town council strengthened its case by claiming that Rhode Island had never officially accepted Block Island’s charter after the War of 1812. If true, an argument existed that Block Island’s wartime neutrality had never ended, and the island was still legally separated from Rhode Island. Connecticut and Massachusetts both made offers to annex Block Island. With attention growing around the world, Block Island’s residents voted to leave the secession up to the rest of the state. In June, Rhode Island’s legislature passed a bill giving Block Island the right to limit the number of mopeds on the island, and the secession crisis passed. Further Reading ‘‘Block Islanders ride Great Moped Battle to brink of secession.’’ Providence Journal, Oct. 31, 1999. Butterfield, Fox. ‘‘Mopeds Spur Secession Talk on Block Island.’’ New York Times, May 31, 1984. Section A, p. 1.

Boon Island. Boon Island is a small island, about a tenth of an acre in size, nine miles off the coast of York, Maine. The island is extremely inhospitable, without fresh water or vegetation. It was first discovered by Europeans in 1682, when a small ship crashed into it. The survivors lived on the island for a month, eating fish and gull’s eggs, before their rescue a month later. In 1710, the ship Nottinham Galley ran aground. The survivors this time resorted to cannibalism before their rescue. Although the need for a lighthouse had been established, money was not set aside until 1799, when the island’s first lighthouse was erected. This structure lasted five years before being wrecked in a storm. The next two towers were also destroyed, but the fourth lighthouse, completed in 1854, has stood to the present day. The Boon Island lighthouse has the tallest masonry tower of any lighthouse in New England, and therefore a special place in the hearts of the area’s lighthouse enthusiasts. On April Fool’s Day, 2003, members of the American Lighthouse Foundation declared Boon Island an independent republic and auctioned off most of the republic’s political posts for money, in order to raise funds for a much-needed renovation. The auction, held on a cruise to the island, raised nearly $4,000. The mock secession is still alive—in late 2004, the Republic was the subject of a staged conflict with the Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association, which ended with Boon Island promising to rejoin the Union as soon as enough citizenships had been sold to renovate the lighthouse.

17

18

BOON ISLAND

Further Reading American Lighthouse Foundation. ‘‘Boon Island Light, Maine.’’ http:// www.lighthousefoundation.org/boonisland.cfm. Dandurant, Karen. ‘‘A ray of light for historical beacon.’’ York Weekly, April 2, 2003. Harrison, Timothy. ‘‘Battle ends in stale-mate.’’ Lighthouse Digest, December 2004.

C California. California is one of the largest of the United states, with an area of nearly 156,000 square miles. Its coastline spans 1,200 miles. The state’s geography is diverse. Its mountain ranges and the wide span between its northern and southern boundaries have given the state a wide variety of climatic zones as well. Mountains follow most of the coastline, from the Klamath Range in the northwest to the Coastal, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges to the south. These mountains trap moisture from ocean and wind currents, making the climate steadily pleasant throughout much of coastal California. In the northeast, the Cascade Mountains give way to the Modoc Plateau. Most of the north is rugged and difficult. The Modoc Plateau contains large areas of lava rock. South of the Cascades, the Sierra Nevada Mountains follow the state’s boundaries south. Between the Coastal and Sierra Nevada Ranges is the Central Valley. The Central Valley’s land is rich in soil, deposited by erosion from the surrounding mountains. The land, now extensively irrigated, is extremely fertile. South of the Sierra Nevadas, the climate is extremely arid. The Mojave and Colorado Deserts, the most arid areas of the United States, make up the southeast of California. Pre-Colonial California California’s wide variety of climates and its rugged geography encouraged isolation. Its Native American tribes are therefore more diverse than those of any comparable region in the United States. Over thirty different nations resided in California at the time of European colonization. The Native American population of California was thriving at the time of European contact, perhaps numbering over 300,000. The Native Americans of California, however, suffered more than those nearly anywhere else. By 1910, the Native American population of California was less than 25,000, and many of those remaining were of mixed ancestry. The coastal tribes were decimated by the Spanish, and those of the interior were abruptly shattered by the sudden influx of American settlers during the Gold Rush of 1848. Many of California’s native languages have been extinguished. Spanish California The first documented European visit to California occurred in 1542, when Juan Rodrı´guez Cabrillo took two ships around Baja California. Cabrillo died of gangrene, and the survivors of his expedition took nine months to return. The survivors brought no information of gold or silver, and so the expedition’s

20

CALIFORNIA

report was quietly buried, part of the Spanish government’s concerted effort to hide information from other European nations about the lands it claimed. In 1579, Francis Drake harbored near San Francisco while cruising the Pacific for Spanish vessels to target. He claimed much of California for England, calling it ‘‘Nova Albion.’’ In the aftermath of Drake’s expeditions, the Spanish sent a few ships to explore the coast again, but maintained their focus on the wealth of Mexico. California did not gain Spanish attention again until centuries later, when Russia began exploring the Pacific and claimed Alaska. Alarmed at this threat to their claims, the Spanish mounted their first serious effort to colonize California. Four expeditionary parties left Mexico and rendezvoused at the present location of San Diego in July of 1769. Many of the colonists were soldiers, who established a string of military outposts. A group of Dominicans also went, led by Father Juniperro Serra. Serra would be one of the pivotal figures in early California history. In the early years of Spanish colonization, Serra oversaw the construction of Dominican missions, where the monks attempted to convert California’s Indians to Christianity and to an agricultural life. Friction with the military outposts was inevitable; the soldiers were bored and lonely, and their attentions quickly alienated the Indian population. Serra insisted on the transfer of married soldiers, hoping that these men would live more peacefully with the Indian population. The first families arrived in 1773, and the new program of settlement brought several hundred people before the Indians revolted against the missionaries and their constant pressure in 1780. The revolt prompted the Yuma tribe to attack the Spanish. The Yuma controlled a large portion of southern California, and the war made it impossible to bring more settlers by land from northwestern Mexico. Further immigration was difficult and expensive, and therefore very limited. When Juniperro Serra died in 1784, there were nearly 5,000 Indians in the Dominican missions. The Spanish population also grew slowly, despite a renewed immigration effort in the 1790s. By 1800, the Spanish population was a mere 1,200. The small population, the presence of Indian workers, and the suitability of the land for livestock grazing led to the development of a ranching culture, with a few families controlling vast areas and large herds of cattle. California’s economy was extremely fragile. They had a wealth of cattle, but little else. American traders soon began to exploit the situation, trading luxury goods and tools with the Californians for cattle hides, despite an official ban on non-Spanish trade. The Californians, only too happy to receive goods they could not get from Mexico, blithely ignored the regulations. As news spread of the profits and the weakness of Spanish rule in the area, American trading ships began calling regularly at Californian ports. This foreign influence grew immensely when the Russians in Alaska leased land in San Francisco Bay to build Fort Rossiya, which they hoped would grow enough wheat and cattle to supply Alaska’s food shortage. The fort was completed in 1814.

CALIFORNIA

Mexican California While the Russians and Americans were increasing their presence in California, the Spanish were fading away. In 1810, Mexico erupted in rebellion. The bitter war for independence would last more than a decade. In the meantime, California was completely cut off. The settlers developed a stubborn sense of self-reliance and independence, maintaining a staunch loyalty to Spain. This was reinforced when a French privateer flying the flag of Argentina captured and burned Monterrey in 1818. The Mexican Republic (and then briefly the Mexican Empire) gained its independence in 1822. The Californians by now thought of themselves as natives, or Californios. They swore allegiance, and elected one of their own as their governor, Luı´s Argu¨ello. The Californios gamely swore allegiance to the new Mexican Republic after the overthrow of Emperor Agustı´n Iturbide. In November of 1825, the Mexican government appointed Jose´ Marı´a Echeandı´a as governor. Echeandı´a quickly angered nearly everyone in California. He moved the capital to San Diego, insulted the mission priests, and refused to pay the soldiers. In 1828, the garrison of Monterrey briefly rose in rebellion. The following year, more garrisons revolted. Echeandı´a manuevered against a former convict, Joaquı´n Solı´s, who seized control of the rebellion and solicited support from the foreign merchants. Solı´s proved unable to maintain control of his men, and was arrested. Echeandı´a was involved in another rebellion in 1831 against his successor. The Californio landowners had by now grown adept at playing the rival Mexican claimants to the governorship off each other, and the foreign merchants who controlled California’s trade were also eager to negotiate a better deal. In May of 1832, the merchants backed a new leader, Augustı´n Zamorano. Zamorano and Echeandı´a came to a gentleman’s agreement, Zamorano governing the north illegally and Echeandı´a the south just as illegally. In January of 1833, the tottering Republic of Mexico sent out a new governor, Jose´ Figueroa. Figueroa granted amnesty to all of the rebels, tacitly acknowledging that it would be impossible to rule California without their help. His fragile governorship collapsed the following year, when Mexico sent out conflicting orders about the missions and Figueroa decided to secularize them. By this time, he was ill and unable to supervise the transfer of mission lands to private ownership. The transfer was marked by corruption and ineptitude. The mission Indians, who had worked the land practically as serfs for generations, were sent away with nothing. Many returned to their tribes. Figueroa died in office in 1835. During this time, the penetration of California by foreign merchants had grown immensely. The Americans now numbered several hundred out of a total non-Native population of under 5,000. American trappers were also starting to arrive over land routes. In April of 1836, Colonel Mariano Chico arrived. He was the first Mexican governor appointed by President Santa Anna, who was at the time beginning his bloody campaign to subdue Texas. Chico sent the Californios into a fury. He flaunted his young mistress, governed arrogantly, and ignored the

21

22

CALIFORNIA

Californios’ political advice. The final straw came when he arrested several landowners who had lynched a priest. In November, a number of prominent Californio families decided to topple Chico. They quietly gathered support from the American merchants. The president of California’s legislature, Juan Bautista Alvarado, led the rebellion. Gathering a small army, including more than 70 Americans, Alvarado seized Monterrey and proclaimed California’s independence on November 6. The new republic’s motto was ‘‘Federation or Death,’’ and Alvarado swore to rejoin Mexico once the Centralist government fell. The more conservative south of California rejected Alvarado’s republic, angered by the influence of the American merchants and their own underrepresentation. Alvarado cynically responded by affirming his own belief in Centralism, but the south was unconvinced. When a new Mexican governor arrived in Los Angeles, the southern Californios joined his cause. Alvarado marched south. His army met Governor Carrillo’s in March of 1838 in a battle which cost a single life. Alvarado continued to press south, and most of Carrillo’s forces were captured or melted away. At a meeting under a flag of truce, Alvarado betrayed his word and seized the entire southern leadership and Carrillo. When word reached Mexico City, the Mexican government gave up and confirmed Alvarado as governor. In return, Alvarado renounced his declaration of independence. Alvarado’s new allegiance to Mexico irritated the foreign merchants, who by now numbered a quarter of California’s adult male population. In 1840, several began plotting to replace him with a more pliant figurehead. In response, he arrested 120 foreigners. Most of these men were later found innocent, but Alvarado got his message across. Ironically, the foreign merchants got their wish granted by the Mexican government. In 1844, a new governor arrived, Manuel Micheltorena, with an army of 300 paroled convicts. Soon, Micheltorena was closer to the foreign merchants than Alvarado ever was. Alvarado, infuriated, raised a new army in November and marched south. As the armies approached, Micheltorena appeared to concede defeat. He agreed to withdraw south with his army. Instead, he secretly raised more troops under the command of a Swiss immigrant, John Sutter. In February of 1845, the two armies met in battle. Powder and ammunition were in short supply—the two armies fired cannonballs, which were then retrieved and fired back. Two horses and a mule were killed, but both armies kept a careful distance. The next day, Americans in both armies withdrew. Deprived of most of his recruits, Micheltorena gave in and left. Alvarado installed a political ally as the new Governor of California. The Bear Flag Republic and the Mexican War Mexico’s inability to assert its authority over California had long inspired covetous thoughts in the capitals of other nations. During the 1840s, Russia built a short-lived settlement in California, while Britain and France both made attempts to bring California into their spheres of influence. The largest foreign presence, however, was by far American. In 1836, Andrew Jackson made an

CALIFORNIA

offer to buy California and what would become the American Southwest from Mexico, but his agent’s venality and Mexico’s anger over its loss of Texas scuttled even the slightest possibility of success. Tensions between the United States and Mexico remained high. In 1842, Commodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones of the U.S. Navy came to the conclusion that the two nations were at war, based on a series of old dispatches that arrived at port just as a British fleet was leaving Peru. He concluded that he had to occupy California before the British. On October 19, 1842, Jones sailed into the harbor at Monterrey and demanded Governor Alvarado’s surrender. Among the spoils of his conquest were a number of recent newspapers. Realizing that there was no war, Commodore Jones sailed away with profuse apologies. The next appearance of American troops was much more threatening. In January of 1846, John C. Fre´mont arrived at Sutter’s Fort, the former Fort Rossiya, near San Francisco. Fre´mont and his men arrived at a time of extremely high tensions between Mexico and the United States. While the Mexican War had not yet started, relations between the two nations were extremely cold. While the Californian government agreed to let Fre´mont explore certain areas, they were uncompromising when they found him straying from his path. By May of 1846, Fre´mont had been escorted out of California and was camped on Klamath Lake in the Oregon Territory. A Marine dispatch rider caught up with Fre´mont there and gave him verbal orders from President Polk to march south. At this time, news of fighting on the Texas-Mexico border and the declaration of the Mexican War had not yet reached the region. Fre´mont was able to march into California unopposed and set up an armed camp. Many of California’s American settlers flocked to him. In response, the California government issued dire threats against any further movements, which had the effect of driving more Americans to Fre´mont. Excited by rumors of war and the presence of an armed American force to the north, one band of Americans seized horses from a nearby ranch and rode into the town of Sonoma. There, they raised a flag and declared California an independent republic on June 15, 1846. Ten days later, Fre´mont rode into the town and took control of what became known as the ‘‘Bear Flag Republic,’’ after the symbol on its flag. While California’s Spanish-speaking citizens debated their next move, a much more important force arrived, the U.S. Pacific Squadron. Commodore John Sloat, after a brief period of hesitation, seized Monterrey and declared California a U.S. possession on July 7. The Bear Flag Republic’s leaders were quick to agree. Within the month, every major town in California had surrendered to the naval forces, augmented by Fre´mont’s irregulars. The Americans were quick to alienate the Spanish-speaking Californios. By late September, they were furious over the imposition of martial law and the arrogant attitude of the American traders who now ran roughshod over the rights of the Californios. They rose in revolt, and soon San Diego and Los Angeles were back under Mexican control. In December, a new column of American troops under Stephen Kearny arrived from New Mexico. Fre´mont marched south to link up with them. Outnumbered and desperately

23

24

CALIFORNIA

outgunned, the Mexicans asked for a truce. Their terms were rejected, and the Californios were beaten in two lopsided battles. The Californio army dissolved, as men deserted rather than face certain death. Fre´mont offered easy terms of surrender, which were accepted on January 13. A few months later, news came of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and California was annexed by the United States. Early California The new California Territory was a chaotic place. Conflicts were rife between the military government, Californios attempting to maintain their legal rights and social status, and the new American settlers who had little patience with either. Even before the news of the official American annexation, there were those who were angry enough at the hapless military government to consider resurrecting California’s brief independence. A number of plots were whispered of in 1848 and 1849. The usual suspects included Californio gentry, businessmen who wanted more control over the economy, and even agents of the Mormon church in Utah. None of these plots came to fruition, and it is likely that paid military informants exaggerated their strength in order to prove their own utility. While the independence movement was fragmented at best and illusory at worst, there were significant problems of governance, even before the flood of prospectors caused by the discovery of gold near Sutter’s Mill in 1848. Three different factions claimed to be the legitimate government of San Francisco. The situation there would become so bad that the elected government was overthrown by a vigilante group in 1851. While the people chafed under military rule, the federal government made no move to institute a new civilian government. The administration of James K. Polk was unwilling to provoke the Southern states by allowing the creation of what would likely be a non-slave territory on the Pacific. Many in the government were uneasy over the unfamiliar expense and difficulty of managing a territorial government on the Pacific. They were joined in this opinion by independence advocates in California and neighboring Oregon Territory. While the issue of California’s government was discussed, Washington was perfectly happy to leave Mexican civil law in place to be administered by the military. In the summer of 1849, a new military governor called for a constitutional convention to defuse the tensions, but his call was overshadowed by the landslide of immigration following the Gold Rush later that year. The Gold Rush brought 10,000 people to San Francisco in the late months of 1848. Over the next few years, 200,000 immigrants would flood into the state. This sudden shift in population made further political haggling impossible. In September of 1850, California was granted statehood, although this required a number of concessions to the South, including the Fugitive Slave Act. Statehood did not end California’s political turmoil. Southern California, which had largely been passed over by the Gold Rush, wanted to return to a territorial government and lower taxes. Local politicians, especially in Los Angeles, agitated for separation from the north. In 1855, a bill was introduced

CALIFORNIA

in Congress to split off the north as the state of Columbia. In committee, the proposal was further refined and the new bill called for three states—Shasta in the north, California and Colorado in the south. The act was impossible to pass in the climate of the 1850s. Another attempt was made in 1859, which came extremely close to success. It called for the division of California along a west-east line at San Luis Obispo, and the creation of a southern territory called Colorado. The governor and state legislature gave their consent. Again, the federal government took no action. Forced to exist as a single entity, California flirted with separatism throughout the days leading to the Civil War. The new settlers were separated by vast geographic obstacles from the East. Many were bitter over the disappearance of the sudden fortunes the Gold Rush had created. The Vigilance Committee, heady after it seized power in San Francisco, was for independence, hoping to run California as it had its largest town. In early 1861, after the secession of the Southern states and the beginning of the Civil War, several pro-Southern legislators called for the establishment of a Pacific Republic, the annexation of Oregon, and neutrality in the Civil War. In May, the legislature passed a resolution supporting the Northern war effort by 49-12 and secessionism ebbed. Confederate sympathizers turned to secret societies such as the Knights of the Golden Circle, which accomplished next to nothing besides a great deal of idle talk. Modern California While the Civil War had little effect on California, the rest of the 1860s certainly did. Telegraph lines appeared. In 1867, the Transcontinental Railroad was completed and California was connected to the rest of the nation by rail for the first time. This period also saw an explosion of settlement throughout the Great Plains. The geographic and logistical difficulties of integrating the Pacific states into the American framework were drastically lessened. California’s population and economy grew steadily. Irrigation made the state an agricultural powerhouse. The state truly came into its own in the 1920s, when huge petroleum deposits were discovered in the state’s south. Los Angeles became a thriving metropolis almost overnight. This massive boom was matched by an equally massive bust, when the Great Depression hit the state’s economy hard. By 1932, twenty-eight percent of Californians were jobless. Many turned to convenient scapegoats, blaming their woes on Mexicans and refugees from the drought-stricken Midwest. Thousands of Mexicans were rounded up and deported in a massive effort, and the ‘‘Okies,’’ as the Midwesterners were scornfully called, faced severe discrimination. California turned to massive projects to stave off the threat of unemployment, such as the Hoover Dam or San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. The arrival of the Second World War brought vast prosperity to California. Shipyards, aircraft manufacturers, and military bases sprang up to fight the Pacific War. After the war, the construction of an impressive highway system complemented the state’s obsession with automobiles and led to a land development boom. By 1970, the state’s population approached 20 million and California was a political as well as economic powerhouse. Today, the state’s

25

26

CALIFORNIA

population is nearly 36 million, and it controls a very large share of the national economy. This sudden growth coincided with a period of unrest in American society. The state’s politics shifted rapidly to the left. California was home to some of the era’s most committed leftist radicals. The civil rights movement in California merged with the increasingly strident movement against the Vietnam War. The Black Panther Party, one of the Black Power movement’s most visible elements, had its start in California. The Native American rights movement also found one of its most visible symbols in the 1969 occupation of Alcatraz. The civil rights movement in California also gave rise to a swelling movement for Hispanic rights, symbolized by the agrarian workers’ movement led by Cesar Chavez. These upheavals in California politics were not quietly accepted by many. Nor were the new immigrants evenly distributed. The divisions between northern and southern California were still present, as evidenced when several northern counties attempted to secede in 1941 and join the new state of Jefferson. This division, exacerbated by economic disparity and battles between the large cities and rural counties over the region’s shrinking water supply, has only grown wider in recent years. Many individuals and organizations have called over the years for a separation. In 1991, the Board of Supervisors in northern Lassen County voted to explore secession from California. Like other northern counties, they were frustrated by economic problems and budget cuts. State Assemblyman Stan Statham seized on the vote, and organized a referendum on splitting the state. In 1992, voters in 31 northern counties were asked whether they supported dividing California into two states. 28 counties voted for secession. In response, Statham introduced a bill asking for a statewide referendum. After discussion in the state Assembly, a bill to vote on dividing California into three states passed. The Senate, which had passed a bill asking for division in 1965, failed to act on this opportunity. Statham’s failed 1993 bill was the last official attempt to divide California, although a number of citizens still support the idea. These regional differences have been aggravated by an acute racial tension. Relations between white and black Californians have often been awkward and tense. Major racially-motivated riots have exploded in California many times, most significantly in the 1965 Watts riot and the 1992 rioting throughout Los Angeles. The state’s Asian-American community faced intense discrimination from the earliest days of American settlement, culminating in the Chinese Exclusion Act and the deportation of Japanese-Americans to concentration camps during the Second World War. Indian tribes have tried with varying success to re-establish their rights to Californian land. The most significant shift in California’s racial politics has been the arrival of millions of Hispanic immigrants. Today, a third of California’s population is Hispanic. Hispanic immigration is one of the most significant and bitterly debated issues in California politics. Extremists flourish on both sides of the debate, with some calling for a massive wall along the Mexican border and others calling for California to become part of a new Spanish-speaking nation called Aztla´n. The state’s future is far

CARSON’S VALLEY

from clear, and its changing population may well produce new and stronger separatist movements than those of today. Further Reading Fehrenbacher, Don E. A Basic History of California. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964. Grimes, Theodore. Military Governments in California, 1846-1850, with a chapter on their prior use in Louisiana, Florida, and New Mexico. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark, 1963. Johnson, Michael. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1999. Lavender, David. California: Land of New Beginnings. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1987. Lucas, Greg. ‘‘Vote to Split State Into 3 Is a Step Closer.’’ San Francisco Chronicle, June 11, 1993. Mathews, Jay. ‘‘Winds of Secession Blow Through Northern California Valleys.’’ Washington Post, p. A3, Dec. 29, 1991. Roske, Ralph J. Everyman’s Eden: A History of California. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

Callaway, Kingdom of—see Winston County. Campeche—see Galveston Island. Carson’s Valley. Nevada was annexed to the United States following the Mexican War of 1848. The first movement of settlers into the region was spurred by the 1849 California Gold Rush. Prospectors fanned out across the West, and Nevada soon became home to a small community of prospectors. The first region to be settled was the Carson’s Valley area in the west, which became an important waystation for pioneers and prospectors on the east side of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The arid eastern half of the state was still virtually uninhabited. The more fertile valleys of Nevada, especially in the west, were occupied by several thousand Paiute Indians, who were little affected by the tiny prospector population. The area was still unorganized territory, but that soon changed. In 1850, Nevada was made part of Utah Territory, under the control of the Mormon Church’s President and Utah’s territorial governor Brigham Young. Young was concerned with Mormon affairs to the exclusion of nearly anything else. The Mormons rapidly extended their settlements across eastern Nevada, and neglected to provide services for the small prospector communities in the west, who were forced to travel to Salt Lake City to conduct governmental business. In November of 1851, a hundred settlers in the Carson’s Valley area organized a squatter government and petitioned Congress for recognition and territorial status. Spurred into action, Utah responded by extending their existing counties westward to encompass Nevada. There was still no effective

27

28

CARSON’S VALLEY

governmental presence, and conducting official business still required an exhausting trip eastward across the entirety of Nevada. In 1853, the prospectors requested annexation to the state of California. Again, Governor Young reorganized the territory, but no one was appointed to the nominal government posts. The prospectors decided they could no longer wait for action from Salt Lake City. In 1854, they drafted a temporary constitution for the ‘‘Colony of Carson’s Valley.’’ A president and administrative council was elected, but the constitution stressed that the government would function only ‘‘until provision is made for our government and protection by other proper authorities.’’ This move finally brought positive action. In 1855, Governor Young organized Nevada into Utah Territory’s Carson County. He sent a few officials, accompanied by 40 Mormon settlers. More followed them. On September 20, the new county government held elections. With the Mormons now a majority, the election results were certain. Mormon candidates filled all positions in the county government. This provoked the original settlers to a fury. In 1855, they again pushed for annexation to California. The government of California agreed, but Congress took no action. There were any number of administrative headaches attached to the proposition, and the delicate balance between slave and free states to consider. The more that Carson’s Valley protested, the more determined Young became to quiet the fractious prospectors. Another wave of Mormon settlers arrived until the region was almost entirely Mormon by mid-1856. Nevada seemed destined to become part of the Mormon empire, until the Utah War of 1857. The Mormons had long had difficult relations with the federal government. The conflict erupted into armed confrontation in 1857, with thousands of U.S. troops marching on Utah. Brigham Young declared martial law and mobilized his militia to oppose them. Gathering all his manpower to meet the threat from Washington, Young called all Mormons back to Salt Lake City. The 500 Mormon settlers in Nevada promptly evacuated, leaving 200 non-Mormons in sudden possession of the territory. The settlers revived their provisional government and sent a note to Congress asking again for an independent territorial government, to be called the Territory of Columbus. They had friends in Congress—the California delegation supported the measure unconditionally. However, the bill never came to a vote—it fell victim to the overpowering need to maintain a balance between slave and free territories. The peaceful resolution of the Utah War removed any further need to reorganize the territories in Congress’ eyes. In March of 1858, the Carson’s Valley administrative committee hung a man for murder. This was a flagrant repudiation of Utah’s authority, to say the least. Utah’s new non-Mormon governor responded positively, by appointing a new county judge for Nevada. Elections were held in November of 1858, but many cried foul, claiming the elections were tainted by fraud. In July of 1859, the settlers held an unofficial election and sent James Crane to Washington to lobby for separation from Utah. This ushered in a long period

CHEROKEE NATION

of confusion in Nevada—neither the Utah government nor the settlers’ unofficial shadow government could enforce its writ. In 1860, President Buchanan removed Nevada’s federal judge and appointed a new one, but the existing judge refused to step down. Both judges held court, claiming to represent federal authority. This governmental chaos was only made worse by the 1859 discovery of the Comstock Lode, a rich vein of silver and gold that eventually yielded half a billion dollars. Overnight, thousands of settlers overwhelmed the territory. Virginia City alone became a metropolis of 20,000 in 1860. The miners there, desperate to maintain order in the absence of effective government, organized themselves into the Gold Hill Mining District and threw their weight behind the provisional government at Carson’s Valley. The eruption of tensions between the burgeoning white population and the Paiute Indians added urgency to the debate over home rule. By 1861, it was obvious that Nevada now had the population and means to mount a successful campaign for separation. The secession of the southern states had removed the Congressional roadblocks to the creation of new nonslaveholding territories. Utah’s government was desperate to maintain control over the Comstock Lode’s wealth, and mounted a last-ditch campaign to gain support by reforming Nevada’s government and granting official recognition to the new boomtowns. It was too little, too late. Nevada pressed for separation and in one of his last official acts, President Buchanan signed a bill creating the Territory of Nevada in March of 1861. Further Reading Elliott, Russell R. History of Nevada. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1973.

Cascadia—see Oregon Champ d’Asile—see Texas. Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee are a Native American tribe, whose range stretched from northern Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina to encompass most of Tennessee and Kentucky, as well as parts of western North Carolina and Virginia. After the arrival of European traders and settlers, the Cherokee were at first able to use newly acquired firearms and horses to expand their territory in wars against the Shawnee and Iroquois, but European diseases and alcoholism soon took a terrible toll on the Cherokee. By the time British settlers had gathered enough strength to push into the Appalachians and challenge Cherokee hegemony, the Cherokee no longer had the power to resist effectively. While low-intensity warfare was widespread along the Cherokee frontier in the eighteenth century, the relations between Cherokee and Great Britain were informed by a steady loss of Cherokee territory to the insatiable Europeans. Cherokee warriors fought alongside the British during the American Revolution, a decision which further eroded the Cherokee position. By the 1790s, the

29

30

CHEROKEE NATION

Cherokee were reduced to a fraction of their former territory and numbers. This crisis forced a deep self-examination among the Cherokee leaders, many of whom were the children of English traders and Cherokee women. These bicultural men used their financial connections and their understanding of both cultures to establish themselves as chiefs, a pattern that repeated itself in many other Native American cultures of the American South. In 1802, Georgia ceded its land rights to the west in exchange for a guarantee that the federal government would remove the Indians from Georgia. While the early presidents agreed with this and urged the Cherokees and other tribes to move west, they were adamant that the Indians go of their own free will. Some Cherokee decided to move west into Oklahoma, but most stayed. The Cherokee exerted themselves strenuously to maintain the goodwill of the Americans, rejecting Tecumseh’s call in 1811 for a union of all Native American nations and fighting alongside Andrew Jackson in his war against the Muskogee, or Creek, nation. In the wake of the war, Jackson turned on the Cherokee, allied with land speculators and the government of Georgia, which was anxious to expel the Cherokee. Jackson bribed, coerced, and sweet-talked the Cherokee chiefs, and plied them with liquor. In a series of meetings, Cherokee chiefs signed away millions of acres of Cherokee land. Many of the Cherokee were understandably outraged, and several of the chiefs who had gone along with Jackson were stripped of their ranks and place in society. The increasing pressure took a toll, and anywhere from three to six thousand Cherokee, out of a population of fifteen thousand, had emigrated west by the end of the 1810s. In the meantime, the Cherokee took significant strides towards acculturation, with the establishment of newspapers, schools, and even rudimentary factories in the new capital of New Echota, which resembled a Georgia town much more than a Cherokee village. Cherokee farms began utilizing African American slave labor. Slavery was first introduced after pressure from the Southern states, when it became apparent that slaves were fleeing to the Indian nations in increasing numbers. Missionary societies flooded into the Cherokee territory, and conversions to Christianity rose steadily. At a convocation of the chiefs in July of 1827, the tribe adopted a constitution which declared the Cherokees a sovereign polity under the United States, therefore rejecting any claim that Georgia had on jurisdiction over Cherokee land. While the Georgians mulled their next move, the constitution and the code of laws that followed ignited a storm of protest. The Cherokee were outraged at the imposition of taxation, at loans from the government treasury to rich Cherokees, and by the fact that the constitution and new laws were written exclusively in English. At a series of meetings over the summer, the chiefs were sent reeling as Cherokees argued against the reforms. The unrest and the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson as President further emboldened the Georgian opponents of Cherokee reform, but the worst blow came in 1829, when a gold was discovered in Cherokee lands by a slave. Thousands of miners poured into the eastern districts, and the Cherokee decided to take no action, afraid of provoking the government. This conciliatory policy proved to be of little help. In December, President Jackson announced that the Cherokee should be removed west, or assimilated. Encouraged, Georgia’s

CHICAGO, STATE OF

legislature passed a series of oppressive measures, banning Cherokee or other Native Americans from mining for gold, testifying in court, or making contracts without white witnesses present. This ignited a fierce Congressional debate, which ended in the close passage of the Indian Removal Act on May 28, 1830. The Cherokees immediately launched a court battle, eventually bringing the matter before the Supreme Court. The Court vindicated the Cherokees, agreeing that Georgia had no jurisdiction over nor right to unceded Indian lands. Jackson’s administration conveniently ignored this, and the date for removal was set in 1838. Public sympathy in the northern states laid with the Cherokee, and protests were lodged with Congress to no avail. Between May and July of 1838, 15,000 Cherokee were imprisoned in military forts, where over a thousand died of disease and starvation. As fall turned into winter, the march west began. The bitter cold claimed many casualties, including many of the 5,000 Cherokee trapped east of the Mississippi by snowstorms. The first contingents arrived in Oklahoma in January, although the relocation was not complete until March of 1839. Three thousand Cherokees died in the stockades and on the march, and another thousand died in the first year in Oklahoma. The situation in Oklahoma was chaotic, as eastern chiefs negotiated reunion with the western Cherokee. Most of the chiefs who had negotiated the treaty allowing removal were assassinated. In July of 1839, the two Cherokee factions reunited, although bad blood continued for some time. The Cherokee organized themselves in Oklahoma as a constitutional republic, separate from the other four of the ‘‘Five Civilized Tribes’’, the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee or Creek, and the Seminoles. In the Civil War, many Cherokee fought for the Confederacy, although others fought for the Union, remembering the harms they had suffered at the hands of Georgians and other southerners. After the war, the victorious Republican administration in Washington reorganized Oklahoma, then called the Indian Territory, forcing the tribes to establish a unified administration. While the tribes were resentful over the loss of their traditional autonomy, they used their new unity to their advantage, attempting to organize a wholly Native American State of Sequoyah in 1902. The movement failed, and Oklahoma was admitted as a state in 1906. Further Reading Ehle, John. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Gibson, Arrell Morgan. Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2nd Edition. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1981. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.

Chicago, State of. The city of Chicago has long had rocky relations with the state government in Springfield. This relationship reached its lowest ebb during the 1920s. For years, the state legislature had refused to reapportion legislative districts to take account of Chicago’s growing population. After the passage of Prohibition allowed organized crime to flourish in the city, the state

31

32

CHIPPEWA TERRITORY

government grew insulting in its open refusal to consider Chicago’s demands for fair representation. In the summer of 1925, the City Council of Chicago decided to make its exasperation plain. Alderman John Toman introduced a resolution calling for Chicago to secede and form an independent state. The City Council approved the resolution, and directed the city attorney to begin preparations for secession. Toman issued a call to other counties in northern Illinois to join the movement, but most were reluctant. A few days later, the City Council announced that it would give the state two years to meet its demands before beginning its move towards secession. The threat was ignored by the state government. Frustrated at their continued lack of power, Chicago’s leaders occasionally resurrected the threat of secession. In 1931, state Representative John C. Garriott, Jr. introduced a resolution calling for the secession of Cook County. Finally, a limited reapportionment was ordered in 1947, but still granted Chicago and Cook County only 19 of the state’s 51 legislative districts despite the fact that Cook County contained more than half of the state’s population. In 1970, a new state constitution helped to ease the tensions over reapportionment and granted home rule to Chicago and other major cities. In 1981, the complicated system of cumulative voting which had allowed districts to send multiple representatives to the state legislature was abandoned. Despite these steps, relations between Chicago and Springfield have only slightly improved. Further Reading Chicago Tribune. ‘‘Council Urges Chicago Form Distinct State.’’ Chicago Tribune, June 25, 1925. Devine, Michael J. ‘‘State Politics.’’ Chicago Historical Society, 2005. The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory. org/pages/1194.html Lupton, John A. ‘‘This week in Illinois history.’’ Illinois Political Journal, June 23-29, 2003. Wood, Percy. ‘‘House Petition Asks Secession of Cook County.’’ Chicago Tribune, April 24, 1931.

Chippewa Territory—see Huron Territory. Cimarron Territory. The region which is now Oklahoma came into the possession of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The eastern half of the state is well-watered and was formerly known as an excellent hunting ground; thousands of trappers and hunters made their livings there in the early nineteenth century. The western half is much drier, and was consequently less desirable to the early settlers. In 1830, Oklahoma’s character changed immensely, when Andrew Jackson pushed through the Indian Removal Bill, which sent thousands of Native Americans from their homes in the American South to Oklahoma. The so-called ‘‘Five Civilized Tribes,’’ the Creek (Muskogee), Cherokee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw, lived on vast

COLUMBIA, STATE OF

reservations which took up most of Oklahoma. However, the western region remained relatively deserted. As settlers continued to move into the region, pressure mounted to allow white settlement in Oklahoma, then called the ‘‘Indian Territory.’’ In 1889, the federal government bowed to these pressures. Several of the tribes were asked to relinquish their claims to western Oklahoma before President Benjamin Harrison declared that the western area, the ‘‘Unassigned Lands,’’ would be open to settlement as of April 22, 1889. 50,000 settlers lined up on the border, and charged into Oklahoma at the sound of bugles. In the rush to settlement, Congress had neglected to organize the region’s government. The settlers created a number of ad hoc local governments. At the same time, the land which is now the Oklahoma Panhandle in the extreme west was without any government at all. Texas had recently vacated its claims to the region, and Congress had organized the New Mexico territory to its west without including the Panhandle. The strip, outside any state or territorial jurisdiction, soon became known as ‘‘No Man’s Land,’’ and was a favorite hiding place for cattle rustlers, thieves, and other outlaws. Settlers in the region organized themselves into Committees of Vigilance, and harsh justice was meted out to the renegades. In 1887, the settlers carried forward this movement of self-organization and created a ‘‘Territory of Cimarron,’’ with a self-appointed governor, county governments, and even a Congressional delegate. The Cimarron government attempted to gain federal recognition, but by the time Congress got around to considering their application it had recognized the urgency of settling Oklahoma’s government. As a result, Cimarron was attached to Oklahoma in 1890’s Oklahoma Organic Act. Further Reading Foreman, Grant. A History of Oklahoma. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942. Gibson, Arrell Morgan. Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2nd Edition. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 1981.

Columbia, State of. Idaho sits astride the Rocky Mountains. Its northern Panhandle is mountainous terrain, rugged and difficult to navigate. The region is much different from the southern plains, and was first entered by the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1803. After Lewis and Clark first explored Idaho, the region remained largely unsettled—their report focused on the inhospitable terrain of the north, occupied by the fierce warriors of the Nez Perce tribe. A few missionaries and trappers made their way into the region, and a fort was established in 1836. For the most part, however, Idaho was still Indian territory, completely outside American control. At this time, Idaho was still part of the Oregon Territory, a region under the joint control of the United States and British Canada. This changed rapidly in the 1840s. Expeditions under Robert E. Johnson and John C. Fre´mont, who would later play an important part in the brief history of the California Republic, announced that the region’s southern plains were excellently suited to agriculture. Settlers began to flood into the region.

33

34

COLUMBIA, STATE OF

Thousands had passed through Idaho on their way to Oregon and Washington by the time James K. Polk used ‘‘Fifty-four forty or fight’’ as a campaign slogan. Polk wanted to seize the entire Oregon Territory, then including present-day British Columbia, by force if necessary. In 1846, the controversy was settled diplomatically, and the Oregon Territory was divided along the present line. In 1855, Mormon missionaries first arrived, the spearhead of a planned expansion north into Idaho. This settlement collapsed in the turmoil of the 1857-58 conflict between Mormon Utah and the federal government, but new settlers were soon to arrive. In 1861, gold was discovered in northern Idaho. Hopeful miners poured into the region, and the population had skyrocketed to over 20,000 within two years. By this time, Oregon had been admitted as a state, and Idaho was part of Washington Territory. The population boom made administration from the West Coast less practical, and also frightened territorial legislators in Olympia who feared losing political control to the booming mining communities. In 1863, Idaho Territory was created, which encompassed Idaho, Montana, and parts of Wyoming. This set off a furious series of debates in Idaho, as the act creating Idaho Territory had neglected to designate a capital. At the time, the mining communities of the north were concentrated around the boomtown of Lewiston. The Boise area, in the south, was starting to attract more settlers, 16,000 to the Lewiston area’s 12,000. As a result, Boise’s legislators were able to declare their city the new territorial capital. As an uproar resulted, Boise attempted to placate the northerners (and end a political headache for themselves) by petitioning Congress to create a new Columbia Territory, which would make up northern Idaho, parts of Montana, and eastern Washington. This proposal perked the ears of Olympia’s elite, still disconcerted to find themselves yoked to the rural section of Washington across the Cascades. Congress, however, was more concerned with the Civil War and had no interest in creating another territory with a Democratic majority; many of the settlers were Southern refugees from guerrilla warfare in Kansas and Arkansas. The petition was ignored. Settlers in the north began asking for annexation to Washington Territory. A new factor entered Idaho politics at this time, a second wave of Mormon immigration. The Mormons at the time were staunch Democrats, thanks to intemperate words of Lincoln denouncing polygamy. The Republican territorial administration used the Mormons to pull together the non-Mormon settlers. In the south, their argument was that the northern votes were needed to resist Mormon numbers. In the north, their argument was that the Mormons were trying to take over Idaho with immigrants, and would resist the mineral-rich Panhandle’s separation. Despite this campaign and blatant voter fraud, the Democratic Congressional candidate Stephen Fenn managed to win the 1874 election. He resurrected the Columbia proposal, hoping to divide Panhandle voters and create a more Democratic Idaho Territory. Fenn managed little headway against a solidly Republican Congress, and the proposal died. In 1890, Idaho (under a Republican administration) was admitted as a state with its current boundaries.

COOK COUNTY

Further Reading Arrington, Leonard J. History of Idaho, Volume I. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press, 1994.

Columbus Territory—see Carson’s Valley. Conch Republic. The Florida Keys are a unique geographical entity, a chain of islands extending southwest from Florida’s southern tip. The islands are spanned by Highway 1, a series of bridges which connect the Keys to each other and to the Florida mainland. In April of 1982, the U.S. Border Patrol blocked the bridge between the Florida Keys and the mainland. The purpose was to search for illegal aliens and drugs, but it also impeded the lucrative tourism industry in the Keys and irritated residents. Traffic backed up for nearly 20 miles, and as coverage of the blockade spread, tourists began canceling their trips. Community leaders demanded action, and Key West Mayor Dennis Wardlow accompanied a local lawyer to ask for a federal injunction. The Circuit Court in Miami refused to stop the Border Patrol from continuing the searches. At a press conference, Mayor Wardlow was asked for his plans by a reporter. Fed up, Mayor Wardlow announced that Key West would secede from the United States. While it was an impromptu joke, the Mayor and several community leaders realized that the secession would draw press attention and possibly pressure the Border Patrol into stopping the blockade. Upon his return, Wardlow raised the flag of the Conch Republic (below the American flag, as a compromise with residents opposed to even a jesting secession). As tension rose throughout the community, Mayor Wardlow issued a proclamation from a flatbed truck on April 23, 1982. In his speech, Wardlow declared Key West the independent Conch Republic, and himself its Prime Minister. At the conclusion of his speech, Wardlow declared war on the United States and then, taking his cue from the satirical novel The Mouse That Roared, immediately surrendered and applied for economic aid. The Border Patrol took down its roadblocks, but the US government never responded to the declaration of independence. Key West still holds annual Independence Day celebrations, where patriots can buy passports and T-shirts, and participate in the Official Great Conch Republic Dessert Contest. Further Reading Anderson, Peter. ‘‘The Conch Republic.’’ http://www.conchrepublic.com. 1996-2004. Burton, Marda. ‘‘Keying-In the Conch Republic.’’ Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 1988, vol 260, no. 1: 64–68.

Confederate States of America—see South, the. Cook County—see Chicago, State of.

35

36

CREEK

Creek—see Muskogee. Cumberland Association. Following the annexation of Watauga to North Carolina, settlers continued to arrive in the area that is now Tennessee throughout the American Revolution. As the war continued, the settlers in the state’s French Lick area decided to form their own civil government, since the authorities in North Carolina were too distracted and distant to administer the area. On May 1, 1780, a meeting was held at Nashborough, which is today Nashville. Richard Henderson, the founder of Transylvania and Watauga, heavily influenced the document produced by the meeting, the ‘‘Cumberland Compact.’’ The Compact outlined a Cumberland Association, which granted suffrage to all free adult males, required universal military service, and allocated seats on the Association’s Tribunal, which had executive, judicial, and legislative responsibilities. The little republic was soon under attack, when Chickasaws attempted to drive out the Cumberland settlers, killing 20 in one attack. After a fierce battle in January of 1781, a Colonel Robertson of the Cumberland militia negotiated a truce with the Chickasaws, who held firm to their word. However, the Chickamauga chief Dragging Canoe remained an implacable foe of all European settlers in his region. The Chickamauga staged raids throughout the following years. North Carolina kept close tabs on the Cumberland Association, intent on preventing another Watauga. As American troops in the region (under the command of John Sevier, who would later be elected the first governor of the state of Franklin) defeated the Chickamauga and Cherokee, North Carolina again extended its power westward, offering larger grants in the west to Henderson and the Cumberland Association in return for the lands they had already improved. The lands were again bought from the Cherokee, although the money appropriated to pay them was spent in the east. Angered by this double-cross, the Cherokee took out their resentment on the Tennessee settlers, whose resentment of North Carolina increased in turn. In August of 1784, the settlers met in convention and voted to establish a new state. A few months later, North Carolina ceded its western lands to Congress. The settlers declared themselves independent as the state of Franklin. Further Reading Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Williams, Samuel Cole. Tennessee During the Revolutionary War. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Historical Commission, 1944.

D Dade County. There are a number of legends surrounding the birth of the Confederate States of America. Among them is the old legend that Dade County in northwestern Georgia threatened to secede from Georgia if the state failed to secede from the United States. This legend has its roots in the fact that the county is physically and economically isolated from the rest of the statethere was no paved road leading from Dade County to Georgia until 1939. In 1945, during the general euphoria over the recent victory over Germany, the town fathers of Dade County decided to officially rejoin the Union, despite the efforts of naysayers to point out that the county hadn’t seceded. On July 4, Dade County officially rescinded its secession. It was joined by the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, which celebrated Independence Day for the first time since 1863. The following year, the village of Town Line in New York joined the two cities in rejoining the United States. For reasons that remain unrecorded, Town Line voted to secede in 1861, although it never pressed the issue. Seeing no good reason to keep the secession on the books, the village council officially revoked its secession on July 4, 1946. Further Reading Chicago Tribune. ‘‘A NY Hamlet Weighs Return to the Union.’’ Chicago Tribune, July 7, 1945. Conley, Chris. ‘‘State of Dade Revisited.’’ Dade County Sentinel, June 29, 2005.

Dakota. The Dakota are one of the largest and most influential Native American nations in the United States. Ironically, it was the spread of American settlers and European diseases which allowed them to flourish. The Dakota moved into the Great Plains only a few decades ahead of the Americans—and adapted to their new environment with remarkable speed and ingenuity. The Dakota language has three dialects. In the eastern dialect, which is spoken by the Mdewakanton, Wahpekute, Wahpeton, and Sisseton tribes, the name of the language and nation is Dakota. In the central dialect of the Yankton and Yanktonai tribes, it is Nakota. Finally, the western Lakota dialect is spoken by the Teton tribe, and the term Lakota is often used for the tribe as well. The name ‘‘Sioux’’ is an abbreviation of an Ottawa term for the nation, and is still used officially by some tribal organizations. The Dakota tribes lived in southern Minnesota when they were first encountered by white explorers in the mid-seventeenth century. At the time, the

38

DAKOTA

Dakota were already expanding. Many of the Great Plains tribes were agriculturalists. Their societies were organized around villages, and trade routes along the rivers connected many tribes indirectly to the civilizations of Mesoamerica. When the Spanish conquered Mexico, disease traveled along the trade routes and devastated the communities in its path. Nomadic tribes fared better, due to their lower density of population. When French and Spanish explorers penetrated the Great Plains, the societies of the Mound Builders had already collapsed, reforming into the Indian nations of historic times. This chaos created a vacuum, and many nomadic tribes exploited the situation. By 1700, the Dakota had expanded to cover most of southern Minnesota. In the mid-1750s, the Lakota acquired horses. Wild horses had escaped from Spanish Mexico centuries before, and were quickly adopted by a number of Native American nations. The spread of horses accelerated the decline of the Great Plains agriculturalists. The use of horses multiplied the military power of the nomadic nations. It also made living off the vast buffalo herds much easier than growing food. Soon, the Great Plains Indian culture that is recognizable to modern eyes had all but replaced the earlier villages of the river valleys. The Lakota were among the most successful of the new horse nomads, and carved out an empire that encompassed most of the modern states of North and South Dakota. By 1841, it had become increasingly difficult to maintain the harmony and consensus necessary to maintain a widely scattered and egalitarian society. The pressures were exacerbated by epidemics and by alcoholism. When the influential chief Bull Bear was murdered in that year, Lakota society split into southern and northern factions. The infighting sapped the nation’s strength, and halted the Lakota expansion. While the Dakota nations were declining, the Americans had arrived in force near the Dakota homelands. In Iowa, massive cessions had allowed settlers to spread throughout the state. In Minnesota, the Dakotas were slowly losing their ancestral homeland. To the west, the settlement of Oregon, the Mexican War, the Mormon move to Utah, and the California Gold Rush had brought thousands of Americans to the west. Slowly, the Dakota had been surrounded. As Americans and Dakotas came into contact, they also came into conflict. The 1850s saw a number of increasingly deadly confrontations. Several times, American army officers were sent to negotiate treaties. These agreements only aggravated the tension. The egalitarian nature of Dakota culture made it difficult to make, let alone enforce, treaty decisions. As a result, the Americans exerted themselves to increase the authority of friendly chiefs. This pressure to adopt a more hierarchical system angered many Dakota, especially as access to trade goods was limited to those who complied with the new terms. The Sioux Wars The outbreak of the Civil War ignited the powderkeg. The Dakota tribes in Minnesota, reduced to a meager agricultural existence on small reservations, were infuriated by delays in the payment of their annuities. The war brought a new flood of settlers—the removal of the Southern contingent from Congress cleared the way for the Homestead Act, and many took the opportunity to move west and escape the draft. In August of 1862, a confrontation between Dakota

DAKOTA

warriors and white settlers led to an explosion of grievances. The Dakota had some early successes, but were unable to hold their own against the Americans, especially as battle-hardened Union troops were diverted to fight them. Many Dakota fled west. The eastern tribes were scattered, and much of their distinct culture was absorbed by the Lakota. Crowded into concentration camps, the rest were expelled from Minnesota. Many Dakota were able to return later, but the nation’s power in the state was irrevocably broken. To the west, attempts at peace broke down completely. In 1866, several Dakota groups allied with a number of neighboring tribes and declared war on the United States. Within six months, over a hundred soldiers and settlers were killed by the allied war bands, led by the Lakota leader Red Cloud. The Oglala Dakota, who ranged across Montana and Wyoming, forced the U.S. Army out of the region and shut down traffic between the East and the Pacific Northwest. Despite these successes, the war parties in the allied tribes were repudiated by many of their own people, who feared American military reprisals. Anxious to end the conflict, the Americans agreed to a new treaty which granted the Dakotas a vast territory, the Great Sioux Reservation, which comprised all of South Dakota west of the Missouri River. In 1874, gold was discovered in the Black Hills, within the reservation. Immediately, a flood of prospectors entered the region. The Dakota immediately asked the American government to stop the prospectors. This faced President U.S. Grant with a difficult dilemma—removing the white settlers would create a political firestorm. He chose instead to provoke a war with the Dakota, demanding that they stop their hunting parties from straying outside the reservation. The Dakota warriors responded by melting away to the west and merging with Cheyenne forces. In June of 1876, the U.S. Army fought a series of inconclusive battles with the Dakota, which culminated in the annihilation of General George Custer’s command at Little Bighorn. After this battle, the Dakota forces dispersed, scattering to avoid reprisals. Unable to win on the battlefield, Congress passed the Sioux Appropriation Bill, which forced the Dakota to give up most of their land, including the Black Hills. General Philip Sheridan cut off the supply routes of the warriors by confiscating all weapons and horses from the reservation. With the warriors scattered and without the means necessary to hunt, the Dakota were forced to surrender. The last band of diehard warriors, led by Sitting Bull, entered the reservation in 1881. The last shameful episode of the ‘‘Sioux Wars’’ occurred in 1890. In 1889, the Paiute shaman Wovoka revealed a series of visions, which began what is known as the Ghost Dance religion. The Ghost Dance promised that the many trials of the Indians were close to an end. Wovoka asserted that Jesus Christ would return, and bring with him all of the Native American dead. The whites would disappear, and the earth would be restored as a paradise. The American government reacted with near-hysteria as the religion spread from reservation to reservation, fearing that the Indians would unite and spark a war across the West. They failed to see the irony of the Ghost Dance, in that Wovoka’s vision converted more Indians to Christian belief and agriculture in a year than the Bureau of Indian Affairs had in its entire existence.

39

40

DAKOTA

The Dakota embraced the new religion, and the government responded by moving troops onto the reservation. On December 15, 1890, Sitting Bull was murdered, ostensibly while resisting arrest. A few days later, another band under the leader Big Foot surrendered at Wounded Knee. U.S. army troops surrounded the Dakota and ransacked their possessions, seizing all arms. At a signal, a number of diehard warriors revealed hidden rifles and opened fire. The Army troops reacted with murderous indiscrimination, killing nearly all of Big Foot’s band with guns and artillery. When the smoke cleared, 30 U.S. soldiers were dead and 300 Dakota, mostly women and children. The heartbreak of the massacre shattered the hopes of the Ghost Dance movement among the Dakota. The Dakota to 1973 The Dakota fared miserably on their reservation. The land was too small to support a hunting lifestyle, and the Dakota were forced into dependence on federal handouts. With their traditions destroyed, the Dakota plunged into a deep depression. Unemployment, alcoholism, murder, and every other measurable statistic showed that the Dakota were losing ground. In 1934, the federal government forced the Dakota to adopt an Americanstyle constitution. As a result, the Dakota were asked to participate in elections. Many traditionalists refused to subject their chiefs and shamans to a vote, and many respected leaders similarly refused to stand as candidates. The elections therefore fell under the control of more assimilated Dakota. Soon, the tribe’s economic life was under the control of a small group of leaders with plenty of power and virtually no recognized authority. In the 1960s the reservation lands remained mired in poverty and underdevelopment. Much of the Dakota reservation land was leased or owned outright by nearby white ranchers. Younger Dakota, seeking greater educational or employment opportunities, were forced to leave the reservations, many to settle in the nearby cities and towns. The activism of the 1960s began to seep into the consciousness of the neglected Dakotas as the political turmoil, demonstrations, and fiery speeches of the anti-war and Black Power movements began to reverberate among younger tribal members. A growing number of educated Dakota turned to activism and launched a campaign to open investigations into the conditions and treatment of the reservation Dakotas. Militants focused on the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie with demands that the US government honor its terms, beginning with the return to Dakota control of the sacred Black Hills. Dakota activists were prominent in the nationwide Native American movement of the time, from the declaration of Alcatraz as Indian land to the 1972 seizure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington. Dakota were also heavily involved in the formation of the American Indian Movement (AIM). AIM was behind the most spectacular confrontation of the Native American movement. Wounded Knee In the 1970s, the Dakota Pine Ridge Reservation was under the control of Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson. Wilson’s administration was corrupt and nepotistic. A number of tribal members began impeachment proceedings, citing his corruption. Wilson responded by asserting that outside agitators were planning

DAKOTA

revolution, and called in federal marshals. He deputized a number of tribal members, whose desire for a paycheck outweighed their tribal sympathies. This roving squad called themselves Guardians of the Oglala Nation, or GOONs. The GOONs roughed up a number of pro-impeachment activists. Wilson also banned all meetings of more than five people, forced his opponents out of the tribal council, and bribed the judge hearing his case. Predictably, the impeachment failed in late February. The Dakota activists appealed to AIM for assistance. AIM decided to launch a highly visible protest, and over a thousand Dakota marched to Wounded Knee. There, they set up roadblocks and announced they would not leave before Wilson and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agents responsible for Pine Ridge were replaced. The occupation quickly escalated into a major crisis when it became known that many of the Wounded Knee occupiers were armed. Within one day, hundreds of police and FBI agents surrounded Wounded Knee with automatic weapons, along with two armored personnel carriers. As it became apparent that a siege was underway, many demonstrators left. 300 or 400 remained behind. The government barred reporters from the scene. In response, South Dakota’s senators both visited and reported that the government’s reaction was unreasonable. The press announced the same. Dick Wilson threatened to invade the encampment, but failed to act. The federal government, however, was more assertive. More APCs arrived, and machine gun emplacements were constructed. The government began firing randomly into Wounded Knee, with thousands of bullets landing every day. F4 Phantom warplanes flew low over the town. The APCs continually crossed an informal cease-fire line to draw gunfire and justify further escalation. Inside Wounded Knee, a few Vietnam veterans began training a militia. The occupiers began fortifying the town. The government set an ultimatum for March 8, which was ignored. In fact, 200 more demonstrators snuck past the government barricades and entered Wounded Knee. On March 11, the occupiers declared themselves the Independent Oglala Sioux Nation and began organizing a government. Despite the heavy buildup, which now included military forces in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, public disapproval prevented the government from attacking or pressing sedition charges. A poll released on April 1, 1973 showed that only 21% of Americans supported the government’s actions. The government offered a truce on April 5, bringing AIM leader Russell Means and several others to Washington. There, the BIA and other government officials refused to meet with the activists before Wounded Knee was disarmed. The activists flew back a few days later and the siege continued. A number of supporters had been bringing Wounded Knee food in backpacks through the gullies and ravines of the area. Police systematically blocked off the trails, but sympathizers dropped nearly a ton of food in a makeshift airdrop on April 17. Dick Wilson was nearing his wit’s end. His GOONs had been sneaking into no man’s land and firing on both sides to provoke firefights and end the cease-fire. After eight were arrested for pointing their guns at a federal marshal, Wilson’s

41

42

DAKOTA

men set off the heaviest shooting of the standoff on April 26. Overnight, the federal forces poured countless tear-gas grenades and 20,000 bullets into Wounded Knee. In early May, the traditional Dakota chiefs intervened, serving to mediate negotiations. On May 8, the siege ended and Wounded Knee was evacuated. The U.S. government agreed to investigate corruption at Pine Ridge and prevent abuse of power, but Dick Wilson was allowed to remain Tribal Chairman and the organizers of Wounded Knee remained subject to arrest. As federal marshals poured into the evacuated town, they desecrated and destroyed a number of sacred relics. An empty hearing was held, but no charges were filed and no reforms took place either at Pine Ridge or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Dick Wilson launched a campaign of terrorism. Between 1973 and 1975, the GOONs killed 67 Dakota Indians at Pine Ridge. In February of 1974, Wilson fixed the election for Tribal Chairman, defeating Russell Means. The following year, Wilson was unable to prevent the election of Al Trimble, a reformer. The GOONs threatened Trimble. Random gunshots were fired at his house, his car was tailed, and his two sons were pistol-whipped, but Wilson failed to intimidate Trimble into withdrawing before his inauguration. This ‘‘Reign of Terror’’ ended with the 1975 shootout at Oglala, when the FBI and federal marshals attacked an AIM encampment. Two FBI agents died, and the government forces launched a massive sweep of Pine Ridge, trashing houses in a search for AIM members. Dakota Nationalism Since Wounded Knee In the wake of Wilson’s defeat, the re-energized Dakota launched a series of legal battles to regain their lands. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government had illegally seized the Great Sioux Reservation, and an offer of nearly 40 million dollars was extended. The Dakota refused to take the money, as acceptance would end their legal claim to the territory. Senator Bill Bradley introduced a bill to restore 1.2 million acres of federal land to the Dakotas in 1987, which failed in committee. Another attempt in the House of Representatives failed in 1990. The Dakota were divided over both bills, as many demanded that the full extent of the Great Sioux Reservation should be restored. In 1991, several Dakota and Cheyenne leaders issued a declaration of independence, rejecting U.S. sovereignty and establishing the Confederacy of the Black Hills. While this action was largely symbolic, it represented a very real frustration with the legal system. Not only were the Dakota battling to regain their lands, but they were also fighting to gain compensation for grievous ecological damage from dam projects and uranium mining. In the late 1990s, a number of court cases solidly affirmed that money was the only compensation available, and that the Dakota could not sue to regain the Black Hills or the rest of the Great Sioux Reservation. In response, a number of Lakota activists again declared independence in 2001. Dakota AIM activists have pursued recognition of the nation’s sovereignty by the United Nations for years, and filed a case with the World Court. Regardless of the World Court’s decision, it seems likely that conflict between the Dakota and the United States government is far from over.

DUBUQUE

Further Reading American Indian Law Alliance. ‘‘Grass Roots Oglala Lakota Nation.’’ Press release. July 4, 1999. Dewing, Rolland. Wounded Knee II. Chadron, NE: Great Plains Network, 2000. Johnson, Michael. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1999. Meyer, Roy W. History of the Santee Sioux: United States Indian Policy on Trial. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. Nester, William R. The Arikara War: The First Plains Indian War; 1823. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press, 2001. Olson, James S. Encyclopedia of American Indian Civil Rights. Edited by James S. Olson. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Price, Catherine. The Oglala People, 1841-1879: A Political History. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994. Robertson, William Glenn et al. Atlas of the Sioux Wars. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, 2005. Zimmerman, Bill. Airlift to Wounded Knee. Chicago: Swallow Press, 1976.

Denver, Provisional Government of—see Jefferson Territory. Dismal Swamp—see Great Dismal Swamp. Dubuque—see Miner’s Compact.

43

E East Florida. In the early nineteenth century, relations between the United States and Spain were distinctly frosty and rapidly growing worse. Spain had been occupied by Napoleon, and the wars of the period destroyed the nation’s ability to control its far-flung empire. Unable to hold Florida by force, Spain had already lost Natchez and West Florida to a flood of American settlers. The Spanish responded to their weakness by turning Florida’s formidable Native American tribes into a force of proxy raiders, who kept Americans from moving into the peninsula. This belligerent posture, combined with Spanish contempt for American democracy and the nation’s debt to Britain in the Napoleonic War, made Florida one of President Madison’s most pressing security issues. The First Annexation In January of 1811, Madison met secretly with Congress, asking for authorization to occupy East Florida. Congress approved this clandestine mission. Madison summoned Colonel John McKee and General George Matthews, former governor of Georgia, and issued them secret instructions. Matthews and McKee surveyed Florida and decided to focus their energies on the port of Fernandina. Fernandina was located on Amelia Island, on the mouth of the St. Mary’s River in northeast Florida. The town’s location made it difficult for Spanish authorities to maintain order. At the same time, it was convenient to southern American ports. The combination of accessibility and lax authority made Fernandina a favorite haunt of smugglers, wanted criminals, soldiers of fortune, and other excellent targets for a filibustering expedition. Matthews sent a letter back to Washington, assuring Madison that he could easily wrest the town from Spanish rule. The following spring, Matthews put his plan into action. With the support of American gunboats, Matthews raised a force of 200 locals and, on March 14, 1812, demanded the surrender of Fernandina’s military commandant and his 10-man garrison. The Spanish gave up, salving their pride by marching out of the town’s fort under full military colors. Matthews declared Amelia Island to be American territory, and raised a banner bearing the slogan ‘‘Salus populi, suprema lex.’’ He then made plans to invade the mainland and sent word back to Washington. Madison was appalled. The political situation had deteriorated since the previous year, and Matthews’s action promised war with Spain as well as the British Empire. Madison sent a new agent, Georgia’s current governor, to retract the annexation.

46

EAST FLORIDA

By this point, Matthews and a small force of U.S. regulars were besieging the Spanish fort at St. Augustine. When word came that Madison had disavowed Matthews, the residents of Fernandina were outraged. They decided to continue fighting, especially since the Spanish governor of the province refused to commit to an act of amnesty. The withdrawal of U.S. Army forces encouraged the Spanish, and their Seminole allies launched a guerrilla campaign against the so-called ‘‘Patriots.’’ This led to outrage in Georgia, as the settlers there had suffered through enough border warfare with the Native Americans to see this development as a threat to their own security. The Georgia Legislature declared that East Florida should be held with or without the help of the United States, and the Governor, stirred by this show of support, called for militia from Georgia to help hold Amelia Island. Madison was inclined to accept the Georgians’ inflexible resolve, but Congress was warier. While Congress approved the annexation of West Florida, it flatly rejected any call to annex East Florida. Meanwhile, the Seminoles, buttressed by escaped slaves from Georgia, continued harassment of the regulars still occupying Florida. U.S. forces were unable to bring the Seminoles to battle, but crippled them by destruction of their villages and crops. This reduction of the Seminoles as a threat to American security was deemed sufficient by Congress. In May of 1813, the last American troops were withdrawn and the Patriots of Fernandina were on their own. Independent East Florida The filibusters, under President Buckner Harris, continued their struggle. On January 12, 1814, East Florida was declared independent. Harris’ government promptly appealed to Congress for annexation and to Georgia for more militiamen. By this time, Georgia was deep into the War of 1812 and had had enough of their erstwhile allies. Instead of sending support, Georgia’s government sent an acid note reminding many of Fernandina’s residents that they owed property taxes on their Georgia lands. On April 19, word came that Congress had flatly rejected the request for annexation. Two weeks later, a Seminole sniper killed Harris. At the time, Harris was surveying lands in anticipation of their worth under American ownership. The Patriots struggled to keep their movement afloat, but were unable to defeat the Spanish or mobilize sufficient support from the American government. In 1816, the last Patriot fighters accepted an offer of amnesty from the Spanish. The only lasting effect of the Patriot Rebellion was the complete collapse of Spanish authority in the St. Mary’s River region. The Americans in the region organized themselves as the ‘‘Northern Division’’ of East Florida, maintaining order and serving as a de facto government for the area. The Spanish governor winked at this dilution of his authority, as it saved him the trouble of controlling the fractious Americans. However, this brief interlude did not last long. The War of 1812 and the long Napoleonic Wars had led to a renaissance of piracy and privateering throughout the Caribbean, especially after the Spanish Empire revolted against Madrid’s postwar conservative regime. Many of these outlaws settled on Amelia Island. Into what he saw as a vacuum of authority came Sir Gregor MacGregor. MacGregor was a veteran of the Peninsular War in Europe, who fought

EAST FLORIDA

alongside Simon Bolivar in South America (and married his niece). Dubbed a general of Bolivar’s Gran Colombia, MacGregor decided to make his fortune while continuing his war against the Spanish. He decided that he could retake Amelia Island and use it as a base to capture Florida. He would then sell the peninsula to the United States, and retire a rich man. In 1817, MacGregor met with a group of Georgian investors, who agreed to bankroll his scheme in return for a percentage of the proceeds when the ‘‘Florida Republic’’ would be purchased by the United States. He also spoke unofficially with President Madison’s government, obtaining tacit American approval for his scheme. MacGregor recruited a force of Georgian volunteers and sailed to Fernandina, where he declared Amelia Island liberated. The island’s population failed to warm to the Scottish filibuster, perhaps because he took possession of Fernandina in the name of Simon Bolivar’s revolution. After bluffing the Spanish garrison into retreating, MacGregor found Amelia Island deserted by the American settlers. In addition, many of the buccaneers on Amelia Island resented MacGregor’s attempts to set up an admiralty court and regulate their privateering. Disillusioned by the cool reception, and despairing of finding a legitimate buyer for Florida, MacGregor left to recruit new soldiers and investors in England. In his absence, he was replaced by fellow buccaneer Louis Aury. A veteran of the French Navy, Aury had switched his allegiance to Bolivar’s revolution in 1815, where he cut a dashing figure as a privateer who raided Spanish ships and won fame for his selfless relief of the siege of Cartagena in Colombia. His reputation, however, was mean and mercenary. After a dispute over payment of prize monies, he fell out with Bolivar in 1816 and accepted a commission from the fledgling Republic of Mexico. Aury filled his role by establishing a privateering base on the ideally situated Galveston Island. After a disastrous attempt to help Francisco Mina’s filibustering expedition in Texas in 1817, the buccaneers of Jean Lafitte’s fleet arrived. Many of Aury’s men defected to the charismatic Lafitte, and Aury sailed from the island in 1817, desperately in need of a new base and funds. Amelia Island was a gamble Aury needed to win. Aury raised the Mexican flag, negotiating with MacGregor’s lieutenants to divide power. With disciplined troops behind him, Aury was able to take control of Amelia Island much more effectively than MacGregor’s adventurers had. Aury’s fleet was soon hard at work on the sea-lanes, and the Spanish loot was converted into slaves, which he then smuggled into Georgia. The chaos and the arrival of privateering fleets under the Mexican flag so close to the Georgia border alarmed the United States. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams demanded action, and President James Monroe concurred. A naval force was dispatched to Amelia Island, with instructions to seize the island by force if necessary. It was not needed; Aury slipped out of port quietly, and left it to American occupation. The Second Annexation The occupation, while it solved some problems, raised many more. The Spanish government was outraged, despite President Monroe’s protestations that the occupation was defensive in nature. The sensitive negotiations were even

47

48

EASTERN SHORE

further disarranged when it was revealed that General Andrew Jackson had crossed the border from Georgia and was fighting Seminoles in the peninsula. The crisis nearly led to war, but was defused at the last moment by the mediation of the French ambassador to Washington. In 1819, Florida was sold to the United States for five million dollars, and the long dispute was at an end. Gregor MacGregor later made his fortune through the invention of the ‘‘Republic of Poyais’’ in Central America, a land swindle that bankrupted hundreds of investors and led to untold misery for emigrants who bought passage to Nicaragua’s Mosquito Coast expecting to find a well-ordered, modern nation. He retired to Venezuela after a term in jail. Aury relocated his privateering operations to Providence Island off the Honduran coast, where he continued his war against the Spanish. He was killed in 1821, thrown from a horse. Further Reading Coulter, E. Merton. Georgia: A Short History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1960. Johnson, Allen. ‘‘Jefferson and His Colleagues.’’ In Chronicles of America, vol. 15, edited by Allen Johnson. New York: R.A. Kessinger and Company, 1921. Kimball, Chris. ‘‘Tour of the Florida Territory During the Seminole (Florida) Wars, 1792-1859: Alachua County.’’ 2002. http://tfn.net/~cdk901/index.htm Owsley, Frank Lawrence, Jr., and Gene A. Smith. Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1997. Porter, Kenneth W. The Black Seminoles: History of a Freedom-Seeking People. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1996. Sinclair, David. Sir Gregor MacGregor and the Land That Never Was: The Extraordinary Story of the Most Audacious Fraud in History. New York: Da Capo, 2003. Tennenbaum, Barbara, ed. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Texas State Historical Association. ‘‘The Handbook of Texas Online.’’ http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/search Warren, Harris Gaylord. The Sword Was Their Passport: A History of American Filibustering in the Mexican Revolution. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1943.

Eastern Shore Maryland has one of the oldest governments in the United States. First colonized by Sweden in 1638, the region was conquered by the Dutch in 1655 and then by the English in 1664. The English colony’s charter became the basis of the state’s constitution over a century later. This conservatism was largely the result of political domination by a few wealthy families, based on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The Eastern Shore has long felt itself to be different from the rest of the state. The area’s agricultural economy and terrain bear little similarity to the rest of Maryland, and this distinctiveness was emphasized by the Eastern Shore’s physical separation. The Eastern Shore region was dominated by the area’s landed gentry for generations. The small number of families that controlled the Eastern Shore’s large cotton plantations dominated Maryland’s political life, electing most of

EASTERN SHORE

the state’s officials and even maintaining a separate treasurer and administrative staff. This long domination was undercut by a population explosion in Baltimore. The city grew rapidly as industrialization began, but Baltimore’s political power was still minute, as the state’s political establishment refused to reapportion legislative seats. In 1836, Baltimore Democrats shut down the state government, refusing to participate in the legislature and denying a quorum until the Eastern Shore’s Whigs gave in and agreed to reapportionment and political reform. This reform movement went so far as to pass a bill in 1837 requiring that the three main regions of Maryland—the Eastern Shore, the central region dominated by Baltimore, and the state’s western counties—would rotate in providing gubernatorial nominees. A few years later, the Eastern Shore’s separate administration was folded into the state government. The continuing reform movement made the Eastern Shore’s aristocracy nervous. In 1850, Maryland’s governor called for a new constitutional convention, which would erase the last vestiges of Eastern Shore domination. Several prominent Eastern Shore politicians began discussing secession from Maryland. These plans never led anywhere, and were overwhelmed by the coming of the Civil War. The Civil War hit the Eastern Shore much harder than the rest of Maryland. The large plantations that had maintained the power of the aristocracy collapsed, and the abolition of slavery was a major economic blow. Ironically, the end of slavery increased the Eastern Shore’s political power—the newly freed slaves counted towards a reapportionment which gave the Eastern Shore a larger voice in the state legislature. This reprieve was short. The end of the Civil War brought an economic boom to Baltimore, which continued to grow until, by the turn of the twentieth century, it contained half of Maryland’s population. During those same years, the Eastern Shore’s population fell. The region fell to its lowest point in the 1950s, due to its isolation, lack of labor, and the decline of Chesapeake Bay’s fishing industry. The election of J. Millard Tawes as governor in 1958 brought hope to the Eastern Shore. The Eastern Shore’s first governor in over 40 years, Tawes dedicated himself to improving the region’s economic well-being. He initiated an effort to restore Chesapeake Bay’s ecological richness and thus its fishery, and built a bridge across the Chesapeake. These efforts did help the Eastern Shore, but were far from completely successful. The Eastern Shore’s separate identity is still alive and well. In 1966, Maryland’s Supreme Court forced a reform of legislative apportionment. From 1966 onward, legislative districts were formed entirely on the basis of population, removing the last vestiges of the old sectional compromises within Maryland. The Eastern Shore’s disgruntlement exploded in 1998, when Governor Parris Glendening enacted measures restricting the crab fishing industry in Chesapeake Bay due to a pfiesteria outbreak. Eastern Shore leaders were quick to criticize the measure, which would badly hurt the area’s economy, as based on poor science. State Senator Richard Colburn, whose district was based in the Eastern Shore, introduced a bill calling for a referendum on the Eastern

49

50

EASTPORT, MARITIME REPUBLIC OF

Shore’s secession from Maryland. The bill met with wide approval in the Eastern Shore, but unsurprisingly failed in committee. Despite this setback, it is safe to assume that the Eastern Shore’s distinct identity is still thriving. Further Reading Colburn, Richard, and J. Lowell Stoltzfus. Eastern Shore—Secession From Maryland—A Straw Ballot. Maryland State Senate Bill 564, 1998. National Fisheries Institute. ‘‘Fish Pfeisteria Creates Unwarranted Fears; Seafood Industry Asks Governors To Calm Citizens’ Concerns.’’ Press release, August 19, 1997. Walsh, Richard and William L. Fix, eds. Maryland: A History, 1632-1974. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Historical Society, 1974.

Eastport, Maritime Republic of. The small town of Eastport, Maryland, was first settled by the English in 1665, although it did not become Eastport until 1888. The town was overshadowed by its larger neighbor, the port of Annapolis. In 1951, Annapolis annexed Eastport. Many residents were unhappy over the annexation. The two towns had kept up a friendly rivalry for decades beforehand. In 1998, the state of Maryland shut the drawbridge connecting Eastport to the rest of Annapolis for repairs. In order to help local businesses which would be hurt by the shutdown, a few local residents took advantage of their temporary isolation to declare their independence as the Maritime Republic of Eastport. The new republic’s motto, referring to the closed bridge, was ‘‘We Like It This Way.’’ On January 25, 1998—Super Bowl Sunday—Eastport held a community festival to celebrate its independence. The tongue-in-cheek secession movement has kept up its community involvement for nearly a decade, raising thousands of dollars for charity. As a result, in 2005, Maryland’s Governor Bob Ehrlich declared October 29 ‘‘Republic of Eastport and Downtown Annapolis Tug of War Day,’’ becoming one of the few sitting American governors to commend a secessionist movement. Further Reading Cullari, Nicole. The Maritime Republic of Eastport. http://www.themre.org Gibbons, Jim. ‘‘All in Fun: There’s a History Between Eastport and Annapolis.’’ New Bay Times 6, no. 4 (January 29, 1998). McWilliams, Jane. History of Eastport. Eastport Historical Committee, 1993.

F Fernandina—see East Florida. Florida Republic—see East Florida. See also West Florida. Forgottonia. Western Illinois has long felt itself estranged from the state government. The power of Chicago in the state government is the key element in this feeling of disenfranchisement. This resentment found a voice in the early 1970s, while Illinois was spending large amounts of money on the upgrading of public roads. The state’s constitution was revised in 1970, and the new document encouraged local governments to cooperate on regional issues. One of the first groups to exercise this new power was the Western Illinois Regional Council (WIRC), formed by six counties in western Illinois. The WIRC assisted local governments in acquiring grant monies and in updating their ordinances, but it became the center of a local controversy in 1973. As the residents became upset over the allocation of state transportation funding, much of which went to Chicago and its suburbs, a student at Western Illinois University named Neil Gamm declared 16 counties in the west (largely coterminious with WIRC’s area) the ‘‘Republic of Forgottonia.’’ Naturally, Gamm also declared himself Governor. Gamm’s declaration was a joke, meant to draw attention to the area’s poor transportation network and the resentment of the local citizenry, but the WIRC’s communications director saw the potential for publicity and helped promote the declaration. Mayor Robert F. Jennings of Canton failed to see the humor in advocating secession, and made his disapproval public. State Representative Douglas Kane helped to defuse the brouhaha by producing numbers which showed that the counties of western Illinois actually received several million dollars more in state funds and grants than they had paid in state taxes. A few years later, the state of Illinois constructed a new four-lane highway through the region. While residents still call the area Forgottonia, the state of transportation and other public services has improved enough to prevent further secession efforts. Further Reading Kane, Douglas. ‘‘State Taxes and Spending: Who Gains, Who Loses?’’ Illinois Issues, June 1975, 185. Villanueva, A.B. ‘‘Western Illinois Regional Council: Supergovernment or its Antidote?’’ Illinois Issues, June 1976, 27.

52

FRANKLIN

Wright, Charlie. ‘‘Around the Square.’’ Fulton County Daily Ledger, August 12, 2003.

Franklin. The Appalachians were settled much later than the nearby Atlantic coast. While traders and fur trappers had pushed across the mountains in the seventeenth century, opposition by Native American groups and the region’s relatively difficult, unproductive land made the land unattractive. After the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, this began to change. In the northern Appalachians, settlers began to push over the Allegheny range to settle in western Pennsylvania and New York. In the south, the speculator and former judge Richard Henderson organized land companies and negotiated cessions from the Cherokee nation. His settlement at Watauga was independent for several years of North Carolina’s government, despite its position in the western third of the state. Henderson then moved west into Tennessee, where he organized the Transylvania movement. By the 1780s, the settlers in western North Carolina had tired of ineffective government. North Carolina had consistently failed to establish a court in the region, and outlaws and fugitives moved through at will. The settlers there, many of whom had helped clear the land of Watauga, were resentful of the coastal government. They organized themselves into a stopgap government called the Cumberland Association. After the conclusion of the American Revolution and the Treaty of Paris, the truce which had kept the settlers from breaking with Raleigh was severed. Arthur Campbell was one of the most influential settlers in the region, a major investor in the settlements in the region. He led the agitation for an effective local government, but could do little while North Carolina maintained a claim to the region. In 1784, North Carolina ceded the region to Congress in order to help the Confederation government pay war debts. This action alarmed the settlers, who had thus been made subject to federal taxes. North Carolina ceased payments to Cherokees in the region, who inaugurated a series of raids. The settlers elected delegates to a convention in August to discuss their next action. The settlers agreed on one thing above all else—they had had their fill of North Carolina. Campbell and others argued for independence, and the motion was passed. The State of Franklin was established, with its capital at Jonesboro. The convention’s delegates scheduled a constitutional convention for December. Before the convention could meet, however, a new legislature was elected in Raleigh that repudiated the cession and organized Franklin into the four counties the area now constitutes. Undaunted, the Franklin delegates convened. A constitution was quickly drafted, and its devotion to individual freedom can be seen in the clause banning lawyers, doctors, and preachers from standing for election to the legislature. However, many settlers in the region were alarmed by the radicalism of the document. Still unsure over the new state’s prospects, the convention cautiously adopted North Carolina’s constitution. In the spring of 1785, Franklin’s legislature convened. Dominated by speculators, the legislature quickly validated land grants made by North Carolina. Franklin’s Governor Sevier, who had strong connections not only with

FREEMEN

speculators but also with North Carolina’s Governor Richard Caswell, blocked a drive by Campbell’s faction to revive the democratic constitution drafted in 1784. Sevier’s term ended in March of 1788, when North Carolina decided to exert its power in the region. A writ was issued to impound Sevier’s property, and therefore pressure him into loyalty to North Carolina. When a sheriff loyal to North Carolina came to Sevier’s house, Sevier was absent, but his slaves were working the fields. The slaves were seized and taken to a nearby house. Sevier called up the militia and marched on the house with a full company of men and a light artillery piece. Two men were killed during the two-day siege, and two of Sevier’s soldiers were killed when a pro-North Carolina militia company arrived. Two of Sevier’s sons were arrested and nearly hanged for treason. The state of Franklin ceased to operate, as North Carolina speedily established county governments throughout the area. Sevier fled into Tennessee, where he involved himself in a fight between the frontiersmen and Cherokee. During his march, a young follower of his murdered several Cherokee chiefs in cold blood. The act appalled many of Sevier’s followers, who drifted away from his planned expedition against the Chickamauga. Desperate to maintain his power, Sevier entered into correspondence with the Spanish at New Orleans, offering to sever the Appalachians from the United States and swear loyalty to Spain. News traveled east, where North Carolina’s governor issued a warrant for Sevier’s arrest for treason. In late October of 1788, Sevier was taken back to North Carolina, where he was rescued from jail by his sons and several friends. Sevier was never put on trial. In 1789, the Constitution was ratified, and North Carolina again ceded its western counties to Congress. The new federal government appointed Sevier as the Franklin region’s military governor. He later served as the first governor of Tennessee. Further Reading Arthur, John Preston. Western North Carolina: a History (1730-1913). Raleigh, NC: Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1914. Green, Thomas Marshall. The Spanish Conspiracy: A Review of Early Spanish Movements in the South-West. Cincinatti, OH: Robert Clarke and Co., 1891. Henderson, Archibald. The Conquest of the Old Southwest: The Romantic Story of the Early Pioneers into Virginia, The Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky 1740-1790. New York: The Century Co., 1920. Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1981. Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Fredonia, Republic of—see Texas. Freedom City—see New Afrika, Republic of. Freemen—see Justus Township.

53

54

FREMONT, ARTISTS’ REPUBLIC OF

Fremont, Artists’ Republic of. The Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington, boomed in the early days of the twentieth century, but declined into a genteel shabbiness as rail service through the area was closed down. The combination of quaintness and low rents attracted students and artists in the 1960s, and Fremont soon gained a reputation as a refuge for bohemians of all stripes. In the summer of 1994, the Seattle government made Fremont an ‘‘urban village,’’ protecting it from invasive development. Many members of the community were upset over the area’s proposed borders, and worked to protect Fremont’s distinct character. At 1994’s annual Summer Solstice Fair, a group of demonstrators asked the crowd for a voice plebiscite on secession, which was carried overwhelmingly by the independence seekers. Amused, the Metropolitan King County Council responded by passing a resolution recognizing the new Republic of Fremont, declaring it ‘‘The Center of the Universe,’’ and supporting its bid for recognition by the UN. This was rather more than the Republic of Fremont had expected, but many noticed that the resolution said little about actually protecting Fremont from further development. During the technology boom of the late 1990s, the cheap land attracted software giant Adobe to Fremont, which built a 300,000 square foot facility nearby. Within a few years, most of the neighborhood’s bohemian charm had been leached away. Gentrification priced rents out of reach for many inhabitants, and the neighborhood’s quirky stores were pushed out by high-priced boutiques. The original inhabitants of the Republic take some solace in the original Summer Solstice declaration, which called Fremont ‘‘a state of mind.’’ Further Reading Northwest Culture. A History of the Artists’ Republic of Fremont. http://www. nwculture.com/NWC/CityDistricts/Fremont/1HP/history.html Reinhardt, Julie. ‘‘Talking art and Fremont with Peter Bevis.’’ Seattle Press OnLine, 2004. http://archive.seattlepressonline.com/article-9327.html

G Galveston Island. The story of Galveston Island’s history in the early years of American independence is tied to the story of a French pirate and privateer, Jean Lafitte. Little is known about his early years. He was born around 1780, and although it is probable he was born in France and emigrated to New Orleans at a young age, the truth is not certain. Lafitte himself liked to suggest a number of possibilities. Lafitte’s ‘‘Kingdom of Barataria’’ Lafitte first emerged in history in 1803 as a New Orleans blacksmith, although the business was a cover for the fencing of goods from privateers and pirates. His brother Pierre served as his chief lieutenant. Within a few years, Lafitte was in control of his own pirate fleet of 50 vessels. From 1808, he operated from Barataria Bay at the mouth of the Mississippi, with his headquarters on the island of Grande Terre. 1,000 men lived in what was known as the ‘‘Kingdom of Barataria.’’ Lafitte’s rule was stern, but it was also fair and evenhanded, a necessity in a kingdom of 1,000 heavily armed men. The nascent Republic of Colombia issued Lafitte letters of marque, giving him the color of legality while he plundered Spanish shipping. This plunder was only part of his enterprise. He also bought slaves cheaply in Cuba and smuggled them into Louisiana without paying excise taxes, allowing him to clear a profit of 400 percent per slave. Once he had established his routes through the perilous swamps of lower Louisiana and come to an understanding with some of the area’s federal customs agents, Lafitte also constructed barges to carry cargo from Barataria past the customs stations. His barges traveled back and forth every day, and soon Lafitte opened his own store on the mainland, driving out other stores through low prices and cutthroat competition. He was soon extremely rich, but he was also highly visible. Lafitte’s fortunes changed during the War of 1812. The British attempted early in the war to seize the upper Midwest, in an attempt to control the Mississippi River and thus the West. This led to panic in New Orleans. Despite public outcry, Louisiana’s Governor Claiborne issued a warrant for Lafitte’s arrest. Claiborne was suspicious of Lafitte’s loyalties. Lafitte heaped scorn on the warrant and evaded arrest for months, until army troops stumbled onto his boat in November of 1812. Lafitte paid bail and never returned to the jail. For the next two years, Lafitte made a laughingstock of the government in Louisiana, strolling about town while Governor Claiborne’s agents could never manage to arrest him. The comic charade was finally brought to an end by news that

56

GALVESTON ISLAND

Washington had been sacked, and that the British were on their way. In September of 1814, Lafitte was approached by British agents, who offered him vast rewards in return for his assistance in seizing New Orleans. Lafitte informed the American authorities, assuring them that he would fight on their side. In return, Governor Claiborne launched a surprise attack, seizing Barataria and impounding most of Lafitte’s goods. Even after this betrayal, Lafitte maintained his loyalty, and appealed to General Andrew Jackson, who promised Lafitte a pardon. In the December 1814 Battle of New Orleans, Lafitte and his men played a vital role in the rout of British forces. President Madison issued a full pardon, on Jackson’s recommendation. Lafitte spent most of 1815 a hero, but relations soon soured again, after Lafitte tried unsuccessfully to get his goods out of a government warehouse. He spent large amounts of money refitting a new fleet, garnering the disapproval of his fellow citizens, who now wanted peace and quiet. In 1817, rejected by the people of New Orleans who had previously lionized him, Lafitte left port. After a brief journey, Lafitte landed at Galveston Island. Lafitte at Galveston At the time, Galveston Island was an uninhabited speck off the coast of the barely settled province of Texas. It was under the control of fellow privateer Louis Aury. After a career in the Caribbean, Aury had arrived at Galveston in 1815, and gained a letter of marque from the Republic of Mexico in 1816. Although technically an officer in the navy of the Republic of Mexico, in practice Aury ruled Galveston as a bandit kingdom the same way Lafitte had ruled Barataria. His rule was continually in danger, and in 1817 Aury seized on the filibustering expedition of a General Francisco Xavier Mina, who attempted to invade Texas. Mina fought well, but could not overcome Spanish superiority in men and materiel, and ended his days shortly before a firing squad. Aury had provided Mina with ships and support in return for money and a stake in Mina’s new government, but the distraction proved fatal. Lafitte had surveyed the island with interest while pretending to assist the Mina expedition. He arrived with his newly refitted fleet a day after Aury left port with Mina. After making arrangements with Aury’s disloyal lieutenants, Lafitte quickly established himself as the island’s new boss, renaming it Campeche. What few men on the island knew was that by this time, Lafitte was working secretly with the Spanish government. In 1815, Lafitte had learned of a planned slave insurrection in Cuba. Fearing the loss of his profitable smuggling business, Lafitte had sold out the rebellion to the Spanish authorities. Now in control of Galveston, Lafitte used his contacts in the Spanish government to offer Aury’s head in return for a pardon. While Lafitte hashed out the details of the plot in New Orleans, Aury returned briefly to Galveston, and after an acrimonious meeting with Lafitte’s men and his own rebellious lieutenants, Aury took most of his naval force and moved it to Matagorda Bay. The region was inhospitable and the local Native American tribes hostile, and Aury returned again in June. He found himself locked in a struggle with Lafitte for his men’s loyalty, a struggle he lost. In July of 1817, Aury gave up in disgust and sailed with a few loyalists to establish a new base on Amelia Island in East Florida.

GALVESTON ISLAND

Lafitte set up new smuggling routes, making a fresh fortune smuggling Spanish slaves into Texas, and from there back into Louisiana. An enterprising young man named Jim Bowie made his living as one of Lafitte’s agents. Lafitte also tried to reconcile with the Spanish government, conspiring to destroy or compromise several filibustering plots, but the Spanish refused to deal further with him. Galveston, or Campeche, was never the same as Barataria for Lafitte. For one, his new crew was much less focused and loyal. The element that immigrated to Galveston were wanted criminals, and even privateering provided barely enough legal cover for men such as them. Lafitte’s powers of persuasion were sorely taxed as he attempted to please the United States, which had just purchased Florida and was eager to quiet the Caribbean and establish friendly relations with Spain. In 1820, the United States sent an envoy to demand that Lafitte abandon his base, and privateering. Lafitte delayed for months, until the May 1821 arrival of an American fleet of warships. Lafitte set fire to Campeche and sailed south. He became a privateer in the service of Colombia, and returned to raiding on the Spanish Main. In a battle off Campeche in 1823, he was seriously wounded and taken ashore to recuperate. There, he died at the age of 41. News took a long time to reach the United States of the Battle, and rumors sprang up around Lafitte’s demise. Some accounts had him dying of plague in the Yucatan, others dying of old age in Charleston, in the bayous of Louisiana, as a pirate in Haiti, or on the battlefields of Bolivar’s Colombia. A particularly convincing oral history states that Lafitte simply waited for the Navy to depart before returning to Galveston under the assumed name of Meazell, a name common among French Protestants. The Meazell family tradition states that Lafitte lived comfortably off the proceeds of years of privateering, dying at an advanced age and surrounded by his wife and children. Further Reading Carse, Robert. The Age of Piracy: A History. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1957. Davis, William C. The Pirates Lafitte: The Treacherous World of the Corsairs of the Gulf. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2005. Geringer, Joseph. Jean Lafitte: Gentleman Pirate of New Orleans. http://www. crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/lafitte/1.html Owsley, Frank Lawrence, Jr., and Gene A. Smith. Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1997. Sherry, Frank. Raiders and Rebels: The Golden Age of Piracy. New York: Hearst Marine Books, 1986. Texas State Historical Association. ‘‘The Handbook of Texas Online.’’ http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/search Warren, Harris Gaylord. The Sword Was Their Passport: A History of American Filibustering in the Mexican Revolution. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1943.

57

58

GANIENKEH

Ganienkeh—see Mohawk Nation. Grand Capri Republic—see Atlantis, Isle of Gold. Grand Isle—see Martha’s Vineyard. Grande Terre—see Galveston Island. Great Dismal Swamp. The institution of slavery on American soil began in the summer of 1526, when 500 Spanish settlers were landed in South Carolina along with 100 African slaves. The colony suffered from the beginning, and three-fifths of the Spanish died. Their slaves rebelled, and many fled to join a nearby Native American community. By November, the Spanish abandoned the colony and the Africans stayed behind, the first permanent colonists in the United States. From the beginning, African-Americans resisted slavery. Many slaves resorted to passive resistance—working slowly, breaking tools, sneaking off to shirk work —while others rose up and fought the people who tried to own them. There was a constant stream of African-Americans fleeing the plantations where they were enslaved, and many slaveowners were killed when they pushed their slaves too far. While these individual acts of resistance or flight were common, it was also common for slaves to band together and protect themselves. These bands of escaped slaves were often called ‘‘Maroons,’’ from the Spanish word cimarron, for escaped livestock that had gone wild. This term is most often applied to the slaves of the European colonies of the Caribbean—American Southerners in the nineteenth century often simply referred to the maroons as ‘‘runaways.’’ Maroon bands were often small temporary groups, a few men or families hiding together in the back country. These bands often supported themselves through theft, raiding nearby plantations for food and occasionally waylaying passersby. Many maroon bands maintained a black market trade with the slaves of neighboring plantations, gathering information and supplies in exchange for food or crafts. The American South was difficult to travel through in the time before steamships and railroads. Many of the river valleys were covered in swampy wetlands, nearly impossible to navigate without an intimate knowledge of the land and the paths through it. Heavily forested mountain ranges cut through the region. In Brazil, Guyana, Jamaica, and many other parts of the Americas, Maroon communities were distant enough from the cities and difficult enough to reach that they were able to establish organized governments, and maintain a comfortable existence outside the knowledge of the European cities. In the American South, despite the difficult terrain, only a few areas were able to support a sustained Maroon presence, including the swamps of Louisiana and Florida. The relocation of Native American nations across the Mississippi made the establishment of Maroon communities much more difficult, as did the rapid spread of white settlers through the Appalachians and other areas which might have supported a Maroon population.

GREAT DISMAL SWAMP

The largest Maroon refuge was the Great Dismal Swamp, which was then a 2,000 square mile expanse of wetlands along the border between Virginia and North Carolina. It can never be known for certain how large the Maroon population of the Great Dismal Swamp was, but it is conjectured that at its height as a refuge, several thousand runaway slaves lived in the swamp. Many slaves turned the swamp’s cypress trees into shingles and timber, while others foraged for food or planted crops deep within the swamp. In colonial times, the swamp also served as a haven for Native Americans and for poor whites, many of whom had fled indentured servitude. Little is known for certain of the Great Dismal Swamp’s economy, since most of the maroons’ dealings were by necessity secret. It is likely that the area’s underground economy functioned like others throughout the South. Often, maroons traded handicrafts, furs, and food for tools and weapons. Most of their barter was with slaves who were absent from their plantations. Slaves often grew secret stashes of food and stole or salvaged goods from their owners, which they would trade with the maroons. Maroons also depended on free black communities. Rarely, the maroons were able to deal with white traders. This aspect of maroon life faded during the nineteenth century. Many of the white frontiersmen who had traded with the maroons had escaped or graduated from indentured servitude. Memories of these times faded, at the same time that Southern white attitudes towards blacks were becoming increasingly rigid. The slaveowners of Virginia and North Carolina were never able to reduce the Great Dismal Swamp, although speculators including George Washington were keenly interested in draining the swamp and reclaiming it—a project that would also increase the safety and productivity of their own slave-worked plantations. Despite occasional forays by militias or posses, the Great Dismal Swamp remained basically lawless until the end of the Civil War, when Union troops marched through and liberated the maroons from fear of reprisal. The conditions that created the Great Dismal Swamp community were unique. Throughout much of the South, it was simpler for escaped slaves to blend into free black communities in larger cities than to attempt to survive in the back country. In the northern part of Virginia and other slave states bordering free states, it made much more sense for an escaped slave to simply flee north into the free states and then to Canada. In Texas, slaves could attempt to flee to Mexico. In the Deep South, especially in the early nineteenth century, maroons stood a better chance of maintaining their freedom by allying themselves with local Indian tribes rather than striking out on their own. In Florida, the maroons were so numerous that their descendents were able to form the Seminole nation in alliance with refugee Creeks from Muskogee. The Seminole nation was able to maintain its independence through a stubborn guerrilla war against overwhelming American forces until 1842. Further Reading Aptheker, Herbert. American Negro Slave Revolts. New York: International Publishers, 1983.

59

60

GREAT DISMAL SWAMP

Aptheker, Herbert. ‘‘Maroons Within the Present Limits of the United States.’’ In Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas, edited by Richard Price. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1996. Finkelman, Paul, editor. Rebellions, Resistance, and Runaways Within the Slave South. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989. Franklin, John Hope and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Katz, William Loren. Breaking the Chains: African American Slave Resistance. New York: Atheneum, 1990. Mullin, Gerald W. Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.

H Hawaii. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago over 3,300 kilometers in length in the central Pacific Ocean. Over 99 percent of the state’s land area is contained in the eight largest islands, but there are 124 smaller islands. The islands were formed by volcanic activity, and several of the archipelago’s volcanoes are still active. The volcanic mountains are among the world’s tallest, and trap a great deal of atmospheric moisture. This moisture, combined with the volcanic soil and Hawaii’s subtropical location, has made the archipelago extremely verdant and fertile. Hawaii Before European Contact Hawaii was first settled approximately 1,500 years ago by Polynesian explorers. The Polynesians were originally from the Asian mainland. They were skilled navigators and colonizers—over the course of 2,000 years, they spread across the entire Pacific, from New Guinea to New Zealand and as far east as Easter Island. The Polynesian explorers who discovered Hawaii flourished. The climate was idyllic, and lent itself well to Polynesia’s traditional crops and animals, such as taro, coconut, yams, pigs, chickens, and dogs. By the eleventh century, the Polynesians had established themselves throughout the Hawaiian archipelago. Within a few centuries, communication with the rest of Polynesia was at an end—the distances involved were prohibitive, and Hawaii turned inward, consumed by its own political disputes. Early Hawaii was most likely dominated by small chiefdoms, societies organized around independent villages. The chiefs of these villages maintained control through a strict set of religious guidelines—kapu or ‘‘taboo.’’ The chiefs and their priests, the kahunas, were viewed as supernatural beings. While the ruling class of ancient Hawaii wielded tremendous religious as well as political power, the commoners were not tied to the land. In periods of stress or inept rulership, they were quite able to flee to another village or overpower their leaders. War was a constant presence in Hawaii. The archipelago’s size and mountainous geography made any attempt to consolidate power difficult. The fecundity of the islands made it possible to raise significant fighting forces. Once the cycle of violence began, a long list of grievances and vendettas made further fighting inevitable. While many of the islands were unified under kings, it was impossible to imagine one king who could unify the archipelago.

62

HAWAII

The Kingdom Of Hawaii On January 18, 1778, Hawaii’s isolation came to an end with the arrival of two ships commanded by Captain James Cook. Cook had left England two years before, with the task of discovering a Northwest Passage through North America. After sailing past Oahu, Cook made landfall on Kauai, and discovered that his mastery of the Tahitian language allowed him to communicate with the Hawaiians. After setting sail again, Cook returned in November. Relations got off to an excellent start—the Hawaiians mistook the English for supernatural beings and were eager to trade, especially for iron tools. Soon, however, the Hawaiians tired of the English presence. This growing tension was exacerbated by disputes between Hawaiians—the priestly caste embraced Cook as a god while the military leadership saw him as a threat to be eliminated. By February, the souring relations had become war and Cook was killed in a skirmish on a beach. The English took revenge by firing on villages from their ships as they left the archipelago. The English incursion had stirred the fears and hopes of Kalaniopuu, the king of the island of Hawai’i. Kalaniopuu had negotiated with Cook for advisors and weapons to no avail. Twice in the last decade, his warriors had attempted to take the island of Maui, under the control of King Kahekili, a wily man who also controlled Molokai and Oahu. Kalaniopuu’s forces had been soundly beaten— but steel swords and muskets could swing the balance of power radically. In 1782, Kalaniopuu died, and his son was killed by the forces of Kalaniopuu’s most formidable lieutenant—a warrior chief named Kamehameha. Kamehameha’s fiercest opponent, Keoua, was also a son of Kalaniopuu and was able to fend off Kamehameha’s attacks with the aid of Kahekili. The stalemate between the rival claimants could have lasted years before finally sputtering out, as countless wars in Hawaii had. In this war, however, a new element had been introduced. After news of Cook’s voyage spread, traders and whalers began sailing the Pacific in increasing numbers, and European visitors arrived in Hawaii in increasing numbers. In 1788, one supplied Kamehameha with muskets and a small cannon. A pair of Englishmen were captured by Kamehameha and became chiefs in his army. With European weapons and advisors, Kamehameha was able to consolidate his power. In 1791, Kamehameha eliminated his rival for the kingship of Hawai’i, Keoua. After meeting another English explorer, George Vancouver, Kamehameha announced that he would rule as a vassal of Great Britain, hoping in vain for more firearms. While he received no firearms, Kamehameha did receive an excellent stroke of luck in 1794. King Kahekili died, and Kahekili’s brother and son went to war over his dominions. Kamehameha moved quickly, seizing Maui and Molokai. In 1795, Oahu fell. The last remaining major island in the archipelago, Kauai, acknowledged Kamehameha’s overlordship in 1810. In 1816, Kauai’s king allied himself with a Russian adventurer, hoping to maintain his independence under Russian protection. When this failed, the islands returned to peace. In 1819, Kamehameha died. His son Liholiho took power as King Kamehameha II. Within a few months of taking power, Liholiho ordered images of the Hawaiian gods destroyed and

HAWAII

ordered the kapu system dismantled. He was determined to modernize his kingdom, and the old customs had been irrevocably weakened as Hawaiians watched foreign visitors violate kapu with impunity. This move opened the way for Presbyterian missionaries, who by 1831 had enrolled some 52,000 people in schools (40 percent of the islands’ population). Literacy (the missionaries had quickly devised a written language for Hawaiian) and Christianity spread quickly. The chiefs were first to embrace the new ways. By 1840, Honolulu was home to 600 foreign residents. Many important posts in the kingdom’s government belonged to foreign appointees. The government was in fact largely shaped by these appointees, including the kingdom’s constitution and Bill of Rights. The majority of the immigrants were Americans. Several Americans gained large land grants, and soon huge sugar plantations were springing up throughout the archipelago. Despite the large American presence, the kingdom’s ruling class was still sentimentally attached to Britain. Fears over French influence led the king to cede his throne to a British officer in 1843, although a ship was shortly dispatched from London to restore Hawaii’s sovereignty. The next major spur to development was the California Gold Rush of 1849, which brought a huge influx of money and more immigrants to Hawaii. In the long run, however, the sudden appearance of a huge American population on the Pacific shore would be much more influential. In 1854, American migrants gathered an army of filibusters, men who were determined to wrest control of Hawaii from the king and set up a republic as a stepping stone before annexation by the United States. The plotting was halted after King Kamehameha III requested a guarantee of independence from the United States, Great Britain, and France. In 1861, when the American Civil War erupted, Hawaii replaced the American South as the primary source of sugar in the United States. The boom in sugar helped ease the transition from whaling as a major source of income. When James Cook first visited the Hawaiian Islands, the archipelago’s population was probably around 300,000. By the 1870s, when the sugar planters began importing laborers from China and Japan, Hawaii’s population was less than 58,000. Nearly 9,000 of these were foreign-born. The vast majority of this decline was due to a succession of epidemics—smallpox, influenza, typhoid, and a long list of other diseases that European ships brought with them. This shift in population helped to accelerate the concentration of wealth in American and European hands. The true power of Hawaii’s foreign population became apparent in 1874. Upon the death of King Lunalilo, two candidates announced themselves for the throne. One was Queen Emma, the mother of the former king. The other was David Kalakaua, an influential chief. He was popular with the Americans in the islands, but the English and a majority of the native Hawaiians preferred Emma. Despite this, Kalakaua was elected king by the Hawaiian legislature, 39 votes to six. The news of this lopsided result caused a riot in Honolulu. One of the legislators who had voted for Kalakaua was killed, and American warships in Honolulu harbor sent sailors to guard government buildings.

63

64

HAWAII

Kalakaua’s reign saw continued economic growth, most of which benefited only the growing American community in Hawaii. At the same time that their economic power was growing, the Americans were becoming dangerously disenchanted with Kalakaua’s policies, including a brief attempt to unify Polynesia under Hawaiian rule. In 1886, some Americans formed the Hawaiian League. The League’s goals were never clearly defined. Some members simply wanted the resignation of unpopular officials. Others wanted to overthrow the government and annex Hawaii to the United States. These tensions were fuelled by Kalakaua’s spendthrift ways and lackadaisical approach to government. In June of 1887, the crisis came to a head. At a mass meeting, the Hawaiian League formulated a series of demands, including a new constitution which would give most political power in Hawaii to the American and English populations. Given 24 hours to respond, Kalakaua resignedly caved in to the ultimatum. By this point, his military was filled with foreign-born officers and soldiers. His government was paralyzed without foreign cooperation. It could also be argued that the deciding factor was Kalakaua’s lack of backbone—he did, after all, control a fortified palace, large stores of arms and ammunition, and the loyalty of a large majority of Hawaii’s population. In fact, an immigrant named Robert Wilcox, who fancied himself a Hawaiian patriot, led an abortive revolt against the American-dominated cabinet. His rebellion was put down at the cost of seven lives, although a native Hawaiian jury refused to convict him of any crime. Regardless of the reasons, the results of Kalakaua’s decision shortly became clear. The Americans tightened their stranglehold on power. However, the puppet government of Kalakaua ended with his death in 1890. His sister Liliuokalani assumed the throne. The Republic and Annexation Relations between Liliuokalani and the American-dominated legislature were frosty, especially after the death of her American husband. They plummeted in January of 1893, when Liliuokalani announced her intention to promulgate a new constitution, restoring rights stripped from the monarch in 1887. The new constitution also favored the native Hawaiians in land ownership, suffrage, and government power. The news was taken hard by the expatriate community in Honolulu, especially a small group of American landowners who called themselves the ‘‘Annexation Club.’’ Within a day, they decided to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani and ask the United States for annexation. The U.S. Ambassador, John L. Stevens, threw his support behind the movement. Within three days of Liliuokalani’s announcement, American troops were pouring into Honolulu, ostensibly to protect American lives and property. With the troops ashore and Hawaii’s military barricading itself, the Annexation Club pushed forward, naming a moderate American and former Hawaiian Supreme Court justice, Sanford Dole, as President of their provisional government. Within one day, the annexationists seized the government headquarters and secured recognition from Ambassador Stevens. One Hawaiian policeman was

HAWAII

shot in the shoulder—this was the only bloodshed. Queen Liliuokalani surrendered to the American government and not to the plotters. The provisional government was quick to send messengers to Washington, D.C. While President Benjamin Harrison was inclined to annex the islands, Congress was hesitant. By the time a treaty had made its way to the Senate floor, Harrison’s term was nearly up and the problem fell to President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland sent a commissioner to investigate the role of U.S. forces in the queen’s overthrow. When the commissioner’s report was issued in late 1894, it made plain that the government had little support from native Hawaiians and only survived with the help of the U.S. military, which had exceeded its instructions to say the least. Cleveland acted quickly. He requested that the provisional government step down and reinstate Queen Liliuokalani, and that she in turn would pardon the revolutionists. She asserted that she would banish all those who took part in the provisional government and confiscate their property. She did, however, indicate a preference for beheading the lot. The provisional government, for its part, flatly refused to give up power despite Cleveland’s position, hoping that the next administration would be more inclined to annex Hawaii. In the meantime, the provisional government reorganized itself as the Republic of Hawaii. The Republic limped along for several more years, surviving an abortive royalist revolt which led to the forced abdication of Queen Liliuokalani. The hopes of the annexationist Republic were fired by the election of President McKinley, but he was unconvinced. An annexation treaty was debated in Congress, but public apathy and strong opinions on both sides meant that annexation would need a compelling reason. It arrived with the U.S. declaration of war on Spain in April of 1898. With the Philippines a major target in the war, Hawaii was suddenly an ideal base for the U.S. Navy. The Congress sped through a bill of annexation, and McKinley signed it on July 7. On August 12, 1898, the flag of the United States was raised over Honolulu. President Sanford Dole was made governor of the new Territory of Hawaii, although he is best remembered now for the food company which bears his name. Hawaii in the United States The annexation led to a new boom in agriculture. It also led to a new shift in Hawaii’s demographics. Upon annexation in 1898, Hawaii became subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned Chinese immigrants from American soil. As the need for workers grew, the plantation owners turned to Japanese labor. Between 1896 and 1900, the Japanese population of Hawaii went from 25,000 to over 60,000. They now comprised 40 percent of Hawaii’s population. Chinese workers were 20 percent of the population, and Americans another 10 percent. Hawaiians were now a small minority in their own land, and many Hawaiians now bore some Asian or European blood. Just as importantly, 80 percent of Hawaii’s land was now in the hands of foreign-born owners. As a territory, Hawaii was largely neglected, forced to pay high tariffs on sugar exported to the mainland and without representation. The territory was under the firm control of a small group of Republican landowners. In 1933, 96

65

66

HAWAII

percent of the sugar crop was controlled by five corporations. The territory’s government was controlled nearly as effectively. The territory’s isolation ended abruptly on December 7, 1941, when Japan attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor and killed over a thousand sailors. Hawaii was a vital part of the American response, serving as the launching point for the Pacific theater of war. Hawaii contributed more than its share of men to the Army. Over 80 percent of all casualties suffered by Hawaiian soldiers during World War II were of Japanese descent- even though the Japanese-American community in Hawaii only made up a third of the population. The war’s end brought renewed pressure for statehood. The new influx of military spending had eroded the tight control of the sugar oligarchs. The performance of Japanese-American soldiers and the loyalty of the community as a whole had eased the worries of American government officials who were hesitant to share power with non-whites. In 1950, a plebiscite overwhelmingly voted for an end to territorial status. A state constitution had already been drafted. The U.S. Congress delayed action for years, partly due to the Korean War and partly because the Democratic Congress feared that Hawaii would vote Republican. Statehood finally came on August 21, 1959. Statehood brought no relief for Hawaii’s native population. The immigrant population continued to soar, while the numbers of native Hawaiians (the vast majority of whom had some immigrant blood) stayed virtually static. The 1960s saw continued economic growth resulting from the Vietnam War as well as increased tourism, which placed mounting pressure on those lands still in native hands. These pressures, combined with the example of the 1960s Native American movement, were the impetus for the organization of a native Hawaiian movement. Modern Hawaiian Nationalism The 1970s saw the foundation of a number of advocacy groups, starting with a group calling itself simply ‘‘The Hawaiians’’ in 1970. As these groups raised the visibility of the Hawaiian rights movement, the state government responded by creating an Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 1978. The movement continued to gather power, as the centennial of the monarchy’s overthrow approached. Some activists declared independence the goal of the movement, although for most the goal was the distribution and use of the 1.8 million acres of public lands in Hawaii—lands held in trust to improve the conditions of native Hawaiians, according to the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959. In 1983, Congress refused to redistribute Hawaii’s public land. The following year, the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Conference was held, and independence was advocated openly by this group, which later drafted a constitution for an independent Hawai’i. In 1992, a group of Hawaiian nationalists declared themselves the ‘Ohana Council of the Hawai’ian Kingdom, or Nation of Hawai’i. The group, consisting of native chiefs and activists, considers itself the voice of all native Hawaiians. Drawing inspiration from the secession movements of eastern Europe at the time, the ‘Ohana Council declared itself the reconstituted Kingdom of Hawai’i.

HURON TERRITORY

1993 began with a mass demonstration in Honolulu, when 12,000 native Hawaiians and supporters marked the 100th anniversary of Queen Liliuokalani’s toppling. This demonstration garnered major media attention, and the missionary organization which had first proselytized Hawai’i in 1820 issued a formal apology for its part in the kingdom’s destruction. In November of 1993, the apologetic movement reached its peak when President Clinton signed the ‘‘Apology Bill,’’ which apologized for the United States’ role in the kingdom’s overthrow. The Nation of Hawai’i responded by issuing a declaration of independence in 1994—an act meant to be taken symbolically and not literally, but one which stung many non-native citizens of Hawaii. The secessionist movement continued to put pressure on the government, organizing a referendum in 1996 in which 73 percent of native Hawaiians voted for independence. In 1997, the U.S. Government acceded to one of the movement’s less controversial demands, agreeing to list Hawaiians separately from Asians in future censuses. Today, about a third of Hawaii’s population supports independence—a total which has increased dramatically from only ten years ago, when 12 percent of residents expressed support for independence. Other recent polls show that a majority of native Hawaiians would rather have recognition and limited sovereignty—along the lines granted to Native American nations—than full independence. Despite these polls, a bill introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka— which would have granted limited sovereignty—met strong opposition from Hawaiian nationalists who claimed it would destroy any chance of future independence. Without a broad base of support among native Hawaiians, the bill was doomed to defeat in the U.S. Senate. It remains to be seen whether the secessionist movement will continue to gather support, or whether a workable compromise will establish a limited sovereignty for the Hawaiian people. Further Reading Castanha, Anthony. The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement: Roles of and Impacts on Non-Hawaiians. Thesis, University of Hawai’i, August 1996. Joesting, Edward. Hawaii: An Uncommon History. New York: W.W. Norton and Conpany, 1972. Nation of Hawai’i. Hawai’i—Independent and Sovereign. http://www.hawaiination.org Podgers, James. ‘‘Greetings from independent Hawaii.’’ American Bar Association Journal, June 1997. Tate, Merze. The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965. TenBruggencate, Jan. ‘‘Sovereignty movement has many turning points.’’ Honolulu Advertiser, June 11, 2006. Wyndette, Olive. Islands of Destiny: A History of Hawaii. Tokyo: Voyager’s Press, 1968.

Huron Territory. In the 1820s, Michigan Territory encompassed a huge part of the United States. It included not just modern Michigan, but also the modern states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota.

67

68

HURON TERRITORY

While this territorial organization suited an area occupied mostly by Native American nations, a growing number of white settlers were pushing west of Lake Michigan. By the late 1820s, these settlers were agitating for the creation of a new territory. Some wanted to call it ‘‘Chippewa,’’ but most wanted the name ‘‘Huron.’’ Many occupants had differing ideas of where the new territory’s boundaries should lie. All of these efforts were discouraged by the government of Michigan, which was already sensitive about its borders due to a long-simmering dispute with Ohio. In 1828, the proponents of a separate Huron Territory sent a bill to Congress. While the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate refused to act. In 1830, the bill again died for lack of Senate support, despite the fact that Michigan’s Governor Lewis Cass now supported separation of the west from Michigan. By this time, Michigan was moving towards statehood. In order to bolster its claim, the government was anxious to jettison the largely unorganized west, which was organized as Iowa County in 1829. Efforts by western boosters and by Michigan to effect a separation moved quickly. In 1834, Iowa Territory was created as a separate government for the Dakotas, Iowa, and Minnesota. In 1835, Michigan’s government was deeply involved in preparations for statehood. Frustrated at the silence from across Lake Michigan, the settlers of Wisconsin organized a de facto state government. Michigan was happy enough to let them take responsibility for themselves. In 1836, Congress recognized the existing government and created Wisconsin Territory. Further Reading Gilpin, Alec R. The Territory of Michigan, 1805-1837. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1970.

I Indian Stream, Republic of. New Hampshire’s coast was first settled in 1623, but the northern half of the province was off-limits to English settlers; the Abnaki tribe resided in the area and fiercely resisted attempts to expel them. The Abnaki were encouraged and armed by the French in Canada, who used the Abnaki as a buffer between themselves and the burgeoning English colonies. At the conclusion of the French and Indian War in 1763, the British annexed Canada. Deprived of their French allies, the Abnaki retreated from their previous warlike stance. They gave up their land title in the late 1790s, although many Abnaki remained in northern New Hampshire for several decades. As settlers began to enter northern New Hampshire, they encountered a dilemma. The Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution in 1783, dictated that the boundary between the United States and British Canada was at ‘‘the northernmost head of the Connecticut River.’’ However, three tributaries flowed into the Connecticut River in the region, and so almost 200,000 acres of land in northern New Hampshire were disputed. This region was dubbed the ‘‘Indian Stream Territory’’ in the missives between Ottawa and Washington on the matter. The region was purchased from the Abnaki by the Eastman Company, a group of land speculators. However, the same land was also purchased by a rival firm, the Bedel Company. The few hundred settlers who moved north and accepted deeds from either company were scattered enough to avoid confrontation, although all were disgusted by the long conflict between the two companies. Most had bought land from the Eastman Company, but by the 1820s they had written off the company, which had failed to back their land claims or to assist them in making their lands profitable. In 1826, Alexander Rea, a Canadian official, urged his government to extend legal recognition of the settlers’ claims, in order to sway their loyalties. The Canadian government, hesitant to take such firm action in a disputed area, refused. In 1827, the border disputes in Indian Stream and along the Maine border were submitted for arbitration to the King of the Netherlands. In January of 1831, the King decided that Maine’s disputed region should be divided up between the United States and Britain, but declared in favor of Britain in Indian Stream. This led to an immediate outcry, and in June of 1832 the Senate refused to accept the arbitration. In the meantime, however, both American and Canadian officials accepted the decision as binding. American officials set up checkpoints on the edge of Indian Stream Territory, to collect

70

INDIAN STREAM, REPUBLIC OF

duties on goods crossing the border. Canadian officials entered Indian Stream at the same time and drafted several men to serve in the military. The settlers were upset over the draft, but furious over the imposition of tolls. The decision also irritated the Indian Stream settlers in a more immediate way. The region had long attracted a lawless element, smugglers and fugitives who took advantage of the territory’s disputed status. New Hampshire had previously sent sheriffs into the area to maintain order, but now the territory was presumed to be part of Canada, and New Hampshire stopped sending its officials into Indian Stream. The settlers organized themselves to maintain order. In March of 1832, a committee was formed which began the process of forming a new government. The Republic; Border Skirmishes In April, word arrived that the Treasury Department had ordered a halt to customs collections, and in June, the settlers learned that the Senate had officially rejected the arbitration. Instead of dissipating the independence movement, the news only encouraged the committee—they hoped to gain concessions by playing Britain and the United States off each other. On July 9, 1832, the settlers declared themselves the Indian Stream Republic, with a constitution and laws based on those of the United States and New Hampshire. The little republic maintained a quiet sense of order for two years, until the first crisis broke. In August of 1834, New Hampshire policemen arrived to confiscate the property of two settlers who had defaulted on debts. They were forced to leave, and the Indian Stream government protested to the State Department. They stressed that they would be happy to accept the authority of whichever state would eventually win the border dispute, but that in the meantime New Hampshire had no claim to Indian Stream. Secretary of State John Forsyth replied that Indian Stream should consider itself part of New Hampshire. New Hampshire, in the meantime, had already reached the same conclusion. The governor and the attorney general instructed the sheriff tasked with maintaining order in Indian Stream (which they interpreted as being part of Coos County) that he should not hesitate to enforce the law. In January of 1835, the sheriff arrested a man inside Indian Stream. A second arrest attempt in March was resisted, and the deputies retreated. The Indian Stream government protested to Canada, which interceded. The government of New Hampshire was unimpressed, and indicted five settlers for insurrection in May. The tensions rose further in July, when a pro-New Hampshire settler was arrested for disturbing the peace by the Canadian government. A petition asking Canada to provide law for the territory was published. These provocations were too much for New Hampshire to bear quietly. On July 20, 1835, a militia regiment was mobilized, and two companies were sent immediately to assist Coos County’s Sheriff White. This show of force brought an about-face from the settlers. The Indian Stream government sent envoys to meet with White, and reached an agreement to accept New Hampshire law as long as the militia was kept outside the Territory’s boundaries.

ISHMAELITES

This action brought the interest of the Canadian authorities. Alexander Rea, who had earlier advocated for the settlers with the Canadian government, was now sent to meet with the Indian Stream government. He urged the settlers to appoint officials who would uphold Canadian law. Events came to a boil in October. John Tyler, a citizen of Indian Stream, was arrested by two New Hampshire deputies and a pro-New Hampshire settler. They were stopped in the road by six settlers, who forced the deputies to release Tyler. Tyler then immediately fled to Rea, who issued a warrant for the arrest of the three men who had arrested Tyler. The settler who had assisted in Tyler’s arrest, Richard Blanchard, was arrested the next day and taken across the border into Canada. Incensed, Coos County authorities assembled a posse, which crossed into Canada and rescued Blanchard. Heady with success, the posse rode back with Blanchard, acquired more members, and charged back into Canada, confronting Rea and a Canadian Deputy Young outside Rea’s home. During a brief scuffle, Rea received a sword wound to the head and Deputy Young was shot in the groin. Rea was taken prisoner and removed to Canaan, Vermont. The officials there were horrified and released him immediately. After this fiasco, New Hampshire’s state militia was ordered to Indian Stream. Canada relinquished all claims to the Indian Stream territory shortly thereafter, in January of 1836. Four months later, the residents acknowledged New Hampshire’s jurisdiction, which was confirmed by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842. In 1849, the US Congress awarded a small sum of money to Deputy Young’s wife, in compensation for her husband’s groin wound. Further Reading Brown, Roger Hamilton. The Struggle for the Indian Stream Territory. Cleveland, OH: Western Reserve University Press, 1955. Hill, Ralph Nading. Yankee Kingdom: Vermont and New Hampshire. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973.

Ishmaelites. In the early years of American settlement in the Appalachians, societal frontiers were as porous and nearly as ill-defined as the political boundaries. Interracial and intercultural relationships were frequent. Many of the children that were born in these relationships assimilated into one of the three major racial groups recognized by American society at the time: white, black, or Native American. However, in a few instances these families, sometimes called ‘‘tri-racial isolates,’’ were able to fuse their cultural identities into a new synthesis. One of the most notable of these new societies were the Tribe of Ishmael. The first records of the Ishmaelites show that they originated around the turn of the nineteenth century in modern Kentucky, at the time a mixture of poor white colonists who had fled to the frontier, Native American tribes dominated by the Cherokee, and a few African-Americans, some brought to the area as slaves and others who had escaped slavery and were living among the Native Americans. The Ishmaelites adopted many customs and mores typical of Native American societies of that period, including a strong emphasis on communal

71

72

ISHMAELITES

ownership, rejection of material accumulation, and self-sufficiency. Their most distinctive tradition was that of an annual migration; the entire tribe would travel hundreds of kilometers. The records do not show any economic or environmental reason for this migration, such as herding, fur trading, or depletion of hunting stocks. No explanation can do this remarkable migration full justice. It is possible that there is a purely cultural explanation; many of the area’s European settlers were of Welsh ancestry. ‘‘Ishmael’’ is a fairly common Welsh surname, and the area is home to many clans of Tinkers, a Celtic migratory society that shares other cultural traits with the Ishmaelites. As settlers continued to arrive in Kentucky, bringing fresh tensions and putting pressure on animal populations, the Ishmaelites moved west to an excellent location on the White River in present-day Indiana, where they established the home to which they returned after their migrations. Later settlers, finding the Ishmaelites ensconced in their land grant, ignored them and founded the city of Indianapolis in the midst of their camp, pushing the Ishmaelites across the river. As Indianapolis continued to grow, tensions mounted between the settlers on the east bank of the White River and the Ishmaelites, whose community was on the west bank. During the nineteenth century, the city and state authorities enacted a sweeping series of laws against ‘‘pauperism,’’ aimed at forcing the Ishmaelites into the familiar pattern of Midwestern society. The Ishmaelites resisted these efforts strenuously. These efforts took on the tone of a crusade after the publication in 1880 of Rev. Oscar McCulloch’s ‘‘The Tribe of Ishmael,’’ a vindictive tract which urged authorities to end any assistance to the Ishmaelites and to confiscate their children. McCulloch’s work inspired a number of eugenicists, social scientists who misapplied the theory of natural selection to human societies and attempted to improve the human condition through selective breeding. This movement gained impetus throughout the 1910s; the field of eugenics was at the time considered another among the decade’s many social reforms. In 1907, the state of Indiana passed a compulsory sterilization law, the world’s first, intended to ‘‘prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists.’’ Unsurprisingly, the ‘‘Indiana Plan’’ targeted many of the Ishmaelites. Daunted at last, the tribe dispersed, and its members assimilated into communities throughout the upper Midwest. Today, little evidence or oral history supports the idea that an Ishmaelite identity is maintained. Some researchers have suggested that the Ishmaelites have had a large (if indirect) impact on African-American history; some oral accounts suggest that the Tribe of Ishmael maintained an Islamic identity, and that they passed on their belief in Islam to black communities such as the one in Detroit, where the Black Muslim movement arose a generation after Ishmaelites settled in the area. Further Reading Estabrook, Arthur H. ‘‘The Tribe of Ishmael.’’ In Eugenics, Genetics and the Family: Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, vol. 1. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1923.

ISHMAELITES

Leaming, Hugo Prosper. ‘‘The Ben Ishmael Tribe: A Fugitive ’Nation’ of the Old Northwest.’’ In Gone to Croatan: Origins of North American Dropout Culture, edited by Ron Sakolsky and James Koehnline. New York: Autonomedia, 1993.

73

J Jefferson, State of. The inhabitants of northern California and southern Oregon have long been disgruntled with their respective state governments. Boosters of the region’s autonomy attempted several times during the nineteenth century to create a new state in the area—‘‘Shasta’’ in 1853 and ‘‘Klamath’’ and ‘‘Jefferson’’ in 1854, a movement which lasted until Congress granted statehood to Oregon in 1859. The Great Depression of the 1930s awakened the old antagonisms. The inhabitants of the region had long demanded action from their state legislatures to build better roads and to help bring the area’s abundant copper and timber resources to the market. As their demands and pleas met with little satisfaction, however, they decided to make their wishes known in a stronger fashion. In October of 1941, Mayor Gilbert Gable of Port Orford, Oregon, rumbled in a speech that perhaps it was time to revive the statehood movement. His statement got some attention locally, but did not spark anything major until the Chamber of Commerce of Yreka, California, decided that it was time to pursue statehood in a more determined manner. After communicating with Gable, it persuaded the Siskiyou County Chamber of Commerce to allocate funds to pursue the matter and build publicity. A contest was held to find a name for the new state, and ‘‘Jefferson’’ was chosen. Roadblocks were set up on US Highway 99, and armed citizens demanded tolls from cars passing through the area. The ‘‘border guards’’ displayed the seal of the new state, a ‘‘double cross’’ within a gold pan. On November 27, the six counties making up Jefferson officially declared their secession from Oregon and California, although only Siskiyou, Trinity, Del Norte, and Curry counties continued to press for independence. On December 2, Gilbert Gable died, and Judge John L. Childs, formerly Jefferson’s Supreme Court Justice, assumed the post of provisional governor. As the provisional government considered its next moves and prepared to organize itself, the movement caught the nation’s eye. On December 4, 1941, several major newspapers and newsreel photographers were present for the inauguration of Judge Childs as Governor. While public opinion appeared to be favorable and the grievances and motivation of Jefferson’s citizens were equal to the task, the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7 shocked the nation, and the Jefferson movement quietly collapsed. In the words of Governor Childs, ‘‘The State of Jefferson was originated for the sole purpose of calling the attention of the proper authorities. . . to the fact that we have immense deposits of strategic and necessary defense minerals. . . We have accomplished that purpose.’’ While the region did not gain its independence, all ended

76

JEFFERSON TERRITORY

well; the US Army finally built decent roads through the region for wartime transport. Further Reading Hall, Christopher. ‘‘A Jefferson State of Mind.’’ Via, September 2003. Editor. ‘‘Many Envoys Will Attend Mass Meeting.’’ Siskiyou Daily Times, Dec. 2, 1941. Kleffman, Sandy. ‘‘Impassable roads led to secession movement.’’ Contra Costa Times, Sept. 24, 2000. Petersen, Brian. ‘‘History of the State of Jefferson.’’ State of Jefferson. http:// www.jeffersonstate.com/jeffersonstory.html

Jefferson Territory. The land which is now Colorado was slow to develop. Parts of it became American territory after the Louisiana Purchase, others upon the annexation of Texas, and the rest was annexed following the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848. While settlers poured into the Southwest, especially during the California Gold Rush and the Mormon migration to Utah, Colorado was largely passed over. The region’s white population consisted of a few trappers and a handful of homesteaders. That changed in 1858, when gold was discovered near Dry Creek. Prospectors scrambled into the region, spurred on by the hopes of easy money and by economic distress on the Great Plains caused by the Panic of 1857. At the time, Colorado was divided between the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The land belonged to the Ute, Arapaho, and Cheyenne nations, none of whom had ceded control over the region. Additionally, the organization of a new territory was prevented by sectional paralysis in Congress. Southern representatives had no wish to dilute their power further by creating new states in the West, and Northern representatives tried desperately to forestall any provocation. The first prospectors, therefore, faced large problems in maintaining control over their find. To prevent opportunists from moving in, the prospectors organized themselves into a mining district, along the lines of similar efforts during the California Gold Rush. The mining districts were extremely rudimentary governments, focused almost exclusively on land rights and the settlement of disputes. The administration of justice was generally well-organized—vigilantism took a back seat to statutes and legal procedures borrowed from established governments, despite the fact that many districts enacted a ban on practicing lawyers. By 1859, 60 mining districts provided functioning, if entirely voluntary and unofficial, governance for most of Colorado. As the population soared, pressure grew for organized government. In the spring of 1859, community leaders in Denver issued a call for delegates to assemble and draft a constitution for the new State of Jefferson. The discovery of new lodes near Gregory Gulch made any real discussion impossible, although the delegates did vote to hold a referendum on statehood. A majority of the voters voted against statehood, fearing taxation. Despite this setback, the statehood movement continued to press its case, and established a provisional government in October.

JUSTUS TOWNSHIP

R.W. Steele, the governor of Jefferson, faced a great deal of difficulty. Legally, his territory was still divided between Kansas and Nebraska. The mining camps ignored Jefferson in favor of their own districts. Congress ignored pleas for recognition. Deprived of tax revenue, the state government was forced to depend on good will and donations. While elections were held in 1860, Steele’s reelection was a futile gesture. While Jefferson Territory was slowly disintegrating, rival governments were springing up. In early 1860, a ‘‘Provisional Government of Denver’’ was declared and organized itself as an independent city administration. In October of 1860, another statehood convention was held at Golden. Jefferson was renamed ‘‘Idaho.’’ A Congressional delegate was appointed to plead the region’s case. At the same time, several mining districts agitated for recognition. The South Platte and United Mining Districts elected their own Congressional delegates. The Mount Vernon District took this process further, declaring themselves independent of any authority except the federal government and adopting a written constitution. The growing chaos finally led to recognition by many politicians that action was needed. Several times during 1860, representatives introduced bills calling for a new territory in Colorado. These bills all failed, victims of the nation’s political tensions. After the secession of South Carolina and other Southern states, the situation shifted rapidly. Congressional roadblocks to organization of new Western territories were gone. The secession of Texas made an organized government in the region vital. Congress rushed through acts to organize the Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada Territories. In February of 1861, President Buchanan signed legislation creating Colorado Territory, and the various unofficial authorities were folded into the new territorial government. Further Reading Abbott, Carl, Stephen J. Leonard, and David McComb. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Third Edition. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1994. Virden, William. ‘‘The State of Colorado.’’ In The Uniting States: The Story of Statehood for the Fifty United States, Vol. 1, Alabama to Kentucky, edited by Benjamin F. Shearer. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004.

Jones, Free State of—see Winston County. Joseph, City of—see Mormons. Justus Township. In the 1980s, dissatisfaction with the federal government and the direction of American societal trends led to the growth of what is often called the ‘‘Patriot’’ or ‘‘Militia’’ movement. The various groups lumped under this label were not a cohesive whole, and their philosophies varied widely. Their common ground was based on a belief that the federal government was too large and too intrusive, and was in fact operating unconstitutionally and doomed to collapse. One of these groups was the ‘‘Freeman’’ movement, which was based in central Montana.

77

78

JUSTUS TOWNSHIP

Roy Schweitzer founded the Freemen in the 1980s, which espoused the ideals of the Patriot movement and of Christian Identity—namely, that the white race was ‘‘the Chosen People’’ and was destined to rule after the fall of the federal government. Schweitzer went further than most militia leaders. He not only advocated action against the government, but held regular anti-government classes at his Montana headquarters. He was heavily influenced by the contemporary right-wing radical Posse Comitatus movement, which had developed a theory of ‘‘sovereign citizenship.’’ This theory holds that virtually every action undertaken by the federal government since the Civil War has been unconstitutional. The sovereign citizen, by this reckoning, has no obligation to obey federal law or to use money issued by the Federal Reserve. The Freemen and other related groups, such as the Republic of Texas or the Little Shell Pembina Band of North America, declared themselves independent of the federal government and refused to answer to any authority beyond the county level. Starting in 1995, the Freemen began issuing fraudulent money orders and other financial instruments (backed by ‘‘liens’’ which the Freemen issued against government officials that opposed them), which came to total nearly two million dollars. These methods of fraud were also taught in regular workshops on sovereign citizenship. As the Freemen started to gather funds and to attract the attention of law enforcement, they relocated to a new headquarters called ‘‘Justus Township,’’ a cluster of buildings on the 960-acre ranch of brothers Ralph and Emmett Clark, located outside the town of Jordan in Garfield County, Montana. The sheriff of Garfield County had held back from prosecuting the Freemen, afraid of their numbers and arms. Finally, he called in federal authorities, who arrested Schweitzer outside the Justus Township compound on March 25, 1996. The Freemen inside the compound, under the leadership of Ridney Skurdal, settled in for a long siege. The federal government, recovering from the PR disasters of Ruby Ridge and Waco’s Branch Davidian compound, was determined to wait the Freemen out. The siege lasted for nearly three months; the Freemen quietly surrendered after the FBI cut off their electricity and telephones. Freeman groups in Washington and Idaho melted away after the end of the Justus Township drama, and most of the group’s leadership were given stiff sentences for fraud, extortion, harassment, and other charges. Further Reading Coates, James. Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right. New York: Noonday Press, 1987. Lacayo, Richard. ‘‘State of Siege: Can Federal Agents Capture Montana’s Band of Holed-up Freemen Without Triggering Another Waco?’’Time, April 8, 1996, p. 24. Maclean’s. ‘‘The quiet surrender of the Freemen.’’ Maclean’s, June 24, 1996, 29. Neiwert, David A. In God’s Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, 1999.

K Kahnawake—see Mohawk Nation. Kanawha—see West Virginia. Kanesatake—see Mohawk Nation. Kanienkehake—see Mohawk Nation. Kentucky. In the years after the annexation of Transylvania by Virginia, and its reorganization as Kentucky County (now the state of Kentucky), the settlers became exasperated with ineffective governance. Virginia’s coastal government was far too remote to exercise effective control. After the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the end of the American Revolution, the Kentuckians began to discuss their future. As it became apparent that public opinion was becoming more radical, a convention was called for December 27, 1784. It was suggested at the convention that Kentucky should demand separation from Virginia, but many protested, afraid of the chaos unfolding to the southeast in Franklin, where western North Carolina was attempting to establish itself as a new state. Instead, another convention was set for August of 1785. The conventions and others that followed had little effect, but even the fifth convention of September 1786 asked for Congressional recognition as a state before taking the step of secession. 1787 saw an explosion of frustration in Kentucky. Rumors began spreading through the district that Congress was considering giving up American navigational rights on the Mississippi. At the same time, Cherokee raids were stepped up, a result of unrest on the Franklin border to the south. This ugly mood led to the calling of another convention for August of 1787. This convention sent a petition to Congress asking for statehood. It also set a deadline for the end of Virginian authority—December 31, 1788. A constitutional convention was scheduled for the new State of Kentucky. At the same time, trader James Wilkinson was in New Orleans, where he conspired with the Spanish officials on behalf of a small group of Kentuckians. James Wilkinson had served as a general during the American Revolution, but had been censured once and finally driven from the service over irregularities in his accounting. The river traffic to New Orleans was vital to Kentucky’s survival, and Wilkinson intended to control it. He also expected to win power for himself in Kentucky.

80

KINNEY

Upon Wilkinson’s return to Kentucky, he announced that he had secured perpetual Kentuckian rights to navigation on the Mississippi, on the condition that Kentucky declare its independence. Wilkinson was lauded as a hero, and swept into the July 1788 convention as a hero. The outcome of this convention was by no means certain. While several distinguished citizens urged caution and moderation, pointing to the ongoing work on a new federal constitution in Philadelphia, Wilkinson and his associates were everywhere, suppressing conciliatory notes from Congress, stressing the need of Kentucky for independence, and poisoning people whenever possible against the government of the United States. Wilkinson introduced a resolution, calling for immediate separation from Virginia, by force if necessary, and the establishment of Kentucky as an independent government. After heated debate, the measure was defeated. This was the high-water mark of the Kentuckian independence movement. Early the following year, Virginia ratified the Constitution. The new federal government was considerably stronger than the Confederation had been, and Kentucky was reorganized as a federal territory, outside Virginia’s control. It became apparent that statehood was only a matter of time, and support for independence plummeted. In letters later uncovered, Wilkinson recriminated the Spanish government for failing to support his plot more quickly. If the Spanish had moved faster to separate Kentucky from the Union, it is impossible to know what might have happened. After the failure of his efforts in Kentucky, Wilkinson rejoined the army. In 1796, Wilkinson became the highest-ranking officer in the army. After the purchase of Louisiana, Wilkinson was sent west as its governor. Wilkinson indulged in further plotting in New Orleans, assisting the Kemper brothers in their attempts to seize West Florida. He also became involved with Aaron Burr’s attempt to seize land from Mexico. It is still uncertain exactly what Burr’s aim was, or whether he intended to wrest the Mississippi from the control of the United States. Wilkinson’s plotting was clumsy, and rumors were soon spreading. Desperate to save his own life, Wilkinson betrayed Burr. In 1811, Wilkinson was cleared of suspicion by a military court, a feat that must have taken every ounce of his political wiles. He served dismally in the War of 1812, was somehow cleared again, and finally died in retirement in 1825. Further Reading Green, Thomas Marshall. The Spanish Conspiracy: A Review of Early Spanish Movements in the South-West. Cincinatti, OH: Robert Clarke and Co., 1891. Harrison, Lowell H. and James C. Klotter. A New History of Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1997. Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Kinney. The eastern region of Minnesota is often called ‘‘The Iron Range.’’ In the 1880s, rich deposits of iron ore were discovered. The iron seams created an economic boom, and towns sprang up throughout the sparsely populated area.

KLAMATH

One of these mining camps became the town of Kinney, north of Duluth in the section of the ore-rich region called the Mesabi Range. The town thrived, and by 1900 it had developed from a temporary settlement into a bustling small town. About 3,000 people lived in and around Kinney. As the Mesabi Range’s deposits dwindled, so too did the town. By the 1960s, most of the richest seams were exhausted and even new mining techniques could not resuscitate the region’s failing economy. By 1941, Kinney’s population was only a few hundred. After the war, it continued to fall. The recession of the late 1970s and declining demand for iron ore threatened to destroy the town completely. The city’s water system was in need of overhaul in order to comply with the new federal Clean Water Act, but the town’s finances were insufficient to the task. Desperate for help, the city applied to the federal government for aid. Frustrated with the slow response and angry with the government for passing the Clean Water Act in the first place, the town council voted to declare independence in February of 1978 and threatened war. The declaration drew national attention, and enough aid from the state and federal governments to satisfy Kinney. Today, the town of Kinney has a population of less than 200. Its brief independence was cited as an inspiration by a group of performance artists, who declared Duluth a free city-state in late 2004. Further Reading Minnesota Alliance for Geographic Education. ‘‘Landscape Change in East-Central Minnesota.’’Macalester College. http://www.macalester.edu/ geography/mage/curriculum/gomn/ east_central_mn/ Sramek, Jean. ‘‘The Free Republic of Duluth: At Last, Real Candidates.’’ MNArtists,org, February 10, 2005. http://www.mnartists.org/article.do? rid=59976

Klamath—see Jefferson, State of.

81

L Lake Michigan, Free District of. In 1886, Chicago had already established itself as a major city. However, much of the city’s shore was still undeveloped. Marshes lined the Lake Michigan coast, especially at the mouth of the Chicago River. The story of the coast’s development is largely the story of one man, George Wellington Streeter, who went by the nickname ‘‘Cap.’’ A veteran of the American Civil War, Streeter had lived on the frontier after the war in a variety of jobs. By 1886, he had settled in Chicago as the operator of a small steamboat, ferrying passengers and cargo. In July, Streeter’s boat was grounded by a storm on a sandbar just off Chicago’s municipal dump on the Lake Michigan coast. Sensing an opportunity to make the most of his loss, Streeter built a causeway to shore and underbid the dump. As Chicago’s citizens dumped their refuse and sand continued to pile up, Streeter’s sandbar soon multiplied to 180 acres. Cap Streeter filed for ownership of the land, arguing that he had discovered it. Streeter further argued that the sandbar was outside the boundaries of the United States, and declared it the Free District of Lake Michigan, basing his claim on a technicality in a single treaty between the United States and Great Britain. He opened a saloon, paying no taxes and serving liquor without a license. He was harassed by nearby landowners, who were determined to oust Streeter and seize his land. With every passing year, the land opposite the Free District became more valuable, especially after 1893’s Columbian Exposition brought millions of tourists to Chicago. The owners on the shore brought suit against Streeter, who had begun leasing lots on his island to other business owners. Streeter had enough popularity and money by now to wage a long legal battle, and in the meantime petitioned the state and federal governments to recognize him as an independent power. Of course, he received no reply. As the frustration of the city and the landowners grew, several attempts were made to expel Streeter. After he somehow browbeat, bribed, or blackmailed the Chicago police into ignoring his operations, the landowners hired street thugs to invade the Free District. Streeter responded by rounding up a mob of his customers, and fought off the invaders. The landowners were careful not to provoke bloodshed—despite Streeter’s shaky legal status, public opinion was soundly behind him. Despite their caution, the landowners were determined to see the fight through to the end. They built a small shack in the Free District and posted armed guards, bandits imported from Missouri. They were

84

LAKOTA

apparently instructed to seize the island and capture Streeter if the opportunity presented itself. The gunmen underestimated Streeter. When they finally made their move, he shot and killed their leader. This was too much for the state government, which immediately moved in and arrested Streeter. He was convicted and sent to jail. His wife stayed in the Free District, and an outpouring of public sympathy prevented her ouster. She had no means of support, and no friends. Too proud to ask for help, she was discovered dead one morning, of starvation or possibly illness. Two years after his conviction, Streeter was pardoned. He returned to the Free District, and again attempted to assert his ownership of the land. His neighbors decided to bide their time. Streeter lived in a small houseboat, and lived off the proceeds from a hot dog stand. He died in 1921, almost penniless. After his death, his neighbors parceled out the lands, their title finally established. Today, ‘‘Streeterville’’ is one of the most prestigious and valuable districts of Chicago. Its lakefront properties include some of the city’s most important buildings, including the John Hancock Center. Further Reading Shackleton, Robert. The Book of Chicago. Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Co., 1920. Stamper, John W. ’’Shaping Chicago’s Shoreline.’’ Chicago History 14, no. 4 (1985-6): 44–55. Tessendorf, K.C. ’’Captain Streeter’s District of Lake Michigan.’’ Chicago History 5, no. 3 (1976): 152–160.

Lakota—see Dakota. Lassen County—see California. Lincoln Territory (Alaska)—see Alaska. Lincoln Territory (South Dakota). Starting around the year 1700, the Dakota people started migrating out of Minnesota into the Great Plains. They adapted quickly to the new challenges of this environment. Within a few decades, they reshaped their entire society around the buffalo hunt, embracing the horse and the gun. By the year 1840, they had conquered the modern Dakotas and parts of neighboring states. Their influence ranged as far as the Rocky Mountains, and they were respected as fearsome adversaries by other Plains tribes and the United States. The U.S. was compelled to recognize Dakota dominion over a vast area, the Great Sioux Reservation which comprised all of South Dakota west of the Missouri. In 1874, a military scouting party discovered gold in the Black Hills, a rugged region in the Dakota lands which the Dakota regarded as holy land. News of the discovery spread fast, and soon prospectors were pouring into the region. The

LINCOLN TERRITORY (SOUTH DAKOTA)

Dakota refrained from open warfare at first, pressuring the American government to expel the intruders. The federal government was unwilling to face the political problems this would cause. Instead, President U. S. Grant adopted a confrontational policy, attempting to provoke the Dakota into a war that would justify seizing the Black Hills. The Dakota nation’s warriors retreated west, melting into the Rockies. The U.S. Army followed, but suffered a series of sharp reverses. In June of 1876, General George Custer was killed along with seventy other American soldiers at Little Bighorn. The news of the defeat sent a shockwave through American society. Immediately, Congress passed the Sioux Appropriation Bill, seizing the Dakota lands and reducing their territory to a small number of tiny reservations. The U.S. Army could not bring the Dakota warriors to heel, but it could and did seize the horses and weapons of the rest of the nation. Without the means to hunt, the Dakotas were forced to accept the reservations and government rations. The warriors were defeated by this action. To return to their families, they had to surrender. The last diehard band under Sitting Bull surrendered in 1881. While this war was going on in deadly earnest to their west, the prospectors in the Black Hills tried to get rich. The mining camps quickly grew into outlaw boomtowns, the largest of which was Deadwood. The governance of Deadwood was a difficult task at best. Without legal recognition, its government was an ad hoc committee, a bare step above mob rule. By the time the region was officially organized as part of Dakota Territory, the prospectors had grown used to running their own affairs. In December of 1876, a bill was introduced in Congress to establish the ‘‘Territory of the Black Hills,’’ which would include parts of present-day Wyoming and Montana as well as the Dakota Black Hills. While the movement found little support in Washington, the new territory’s boosters refused to give up, and Deadwood’s Dr. C.W. Meyer lobbied Congress to set up a ‘‘Territory of El Dorado.’’ Shortly thereafter, the men behind the territorial movement settled on the more inspiring name of Lincoln, hoping thereby to garner support from the Republican majority in Congress. A bill to set up the Territory of Lincoln was introduced in the Senate in February of 1877, but again Congress took little interest in the proposal. The boosters in Deadwood continued to work on the project, however, going so far as to draw up a legislative code. The silence from Washington wore down the supporters, and while the Lincoln bill was re-introduced in 1879 (and died in committee), the ambitions of Deadwood’s political leaders had since moved on to new targets. The secession movement was revived in 1935, as the Great Depression savaged the region’s economy. The backers of the new movement were based in Sheridan, Wyoming, and demanded the same territory suggested by the Lincoln Territory backers, to be named Absaroka after the name given to the region by the Crow Indians. The difficulties were insurmountable, as Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Congress would all have to give their approval, and Absaroka quickly went the way of Lincoln.

85

86

LITTLE SHELL PEMBINA BAND OF NORTH AMERICA

Further Reading Lamar, Howard Roberts. Dakota Territory 1861-1889: A Study of Frontier Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956. Larson, T. A. History of Wyoming, 2nd Edition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1978. Parker, Watson. Deadwood: The Golden Years. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1981.

Little Shell Pembina Band of North America. The Little Shell Pembina Band is a branch of the Chippewa tribe. During the Plains Wars of the nineteenth century, the band fled their home in North Dakota and found refuge in Montana. Their chief Little Shell, from whom the band took their name, died in 1901. The band has attempted unsuccessfully to gain federal recognition for decades, but the United States government has consistently refused to recognize the Little Shell Band as a separate legal entity. The Little Shell Pembina Band of North America is something entirely different. In 2001, a North Dakota man named Ronald Delorme proclaimed himself the Chief of the Little Shell Pembina Band of North America, and sued the U.S. government for over 100 million dollars. He did not win the money, but the court case brought him publicity. Delorme used the publicity to develop his Little Shell Band into a sovereign citizen group, which admitted anyone who applied for a fee. The sovereign citizen movement evolved out of extreme right-wing movements of the 1970s, which refused to admit the legitimacy of the federal government. These movements, often allied with con men or with racist organizations, grew into the militia movement of the 1980s and 1990s. After the siege of Montana’s Justus Township and the Oklahoma City bombing of 1993, the militia movement went on the wane. Many sovereign citizen groups use the techniques of self-declared sovereignty for financial gain, paying loans with useless promissory notes or threatening opponents with crippling legal bills. The Little Shell Band is no exception. Since 2004, Delorme’s allies have used the Little Shell Band as cover in a number of financial schemes, ranging from fake license plates to debt and tax avoidance and attempts to sell fake insurance. The Little Shell Band has been involved in a number of court cases, but constant government pressure has failed to daunt them. Delorme’s movement has fractured into several factions, and all of them continue to press his original claims and manufacture a steady stream of bogus legal documents. The Little Shell Pembina Band, whose 4,000 Chippewa members still live in Montana, have taken great pains to disassociate themselves from Delorme’s movement. Their most recent attempt to gain recognition is still moving through the federal system.

LOUDS ISLAND

Further Reading Anti-Defamation League. ‘‘Little Shell Pembina Band.’’ http://www.adl.org/ Learn/Ext_US/Little_Shell.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=little_shell ‘‘Firm Told To Stop Selling Med Mal Liability in Ga.’’ Insurance Journal, April 4, 2003. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2003/04/04/ 27699.htm Little Shell Tribe. Little Shell Tribe of Montana. 2006. http://www.littleshelltribe.com/

Louds Island—see Muscongus Island.

87

M McDonald Territory. Noel is a pleasant, quiet town in southwestern Missouri’s McDonald County. The town is located in the Ozark Range, and prides itself on its scenery and on its tasteful tourist industry. In 1961, Noel was inadvertently omitted from Missouri’s official Family Vacation Land Map. The 11,000 locals were incensed, as this oversight threatened their lucrative tourist industry. In order to publicize their plight, a group of local citizens declared the county the independent McDonald Territory. Signs were erected at the county limits reading ‘‘YOU ARE NOW ENTERING MCDONALD TERRITORY.’’ The officers of the ‘‘Provisional Government’’ quickly began leveraging their independence into publicity, issuing temporary visas to visitors, along with commemorative stamps and wooden nickels. Their point made, the secessionists retracted the declaration, but still pride themselves on their brief independence. Further Reading The Midwest Motorist. ‘‘Noel.’’ The Midwest Motorist, December 1970: 7. Mosbaugh, R.C. McDonald County Courthouse Directory and Buyers Guide. Noel, MO: McDonald County Government, 1962.

Madawaska, Republic of. Before the 1750s, much of eastern Canada, even outside of Quebec, was inhabited by French-speaking settlers. The Acadians, as they called themselves, were closely allied to the nearby Abnaki tribe. The Acadians and Abnaki were thrown together by shared enmity towards the British to the south, and because they lived on the same land and followed the same economic patterns. Often, Abnaki and Acadians intermarried. By the eighteenth century, it was difficult to tell where one community ended and the other began. The British occupation of Acadia during the French and Indian War was largely unsuccessful. British attempts to control the community met fierce resistance. Eventually, the British decided to end their dilemma by removing the Acadians entirely, which would also defang the Abnaki and allow the British to seize control of the fur trade in Western Canada from Quebecois traders. Over the next decade, thousands of Acadians were uprooted and exiled to Louisiana or France. Communities and families were deliberately separated, to prevent the Acadians from organizing to resist. Several thousand people died during the brutal campaign, and on the poorly provisioned ships that took them into exile.

90

MADAWASKA, REPUBLIC OF.

This ethnic cleansing was not completely successful. Many Acadians were able to flee to Abnaki lands in northern Maine. Northern Maine and southern New Brunswick were at the time called Madawaska, after the Algonquin name for the St. John River. There, they were able to maintain a small part of their previous independence, and were distant and few enough to attract little attention from Maine’s colonial masters in Boston. The small Acadian population was swamped in 1783, when American Loyalists fled to Canada from the United States after the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution. The population was now a mix of strongly anti-British Acadians and strongly anti-American Loyalists, in a land with little effective government. To make matters worse, the Treaty of Paris did not closely define the boundaries between Maine and New Brunswick. While the region’s strategic value was small, its stands of virgin timber were a valuable economic prize, and therefore neither nation was willing to abandon its claim. The tensions in the region grew worse during the War of 1812. The divided loyalties of the region and the disputed nature of the territory made the war a very personal dilemma for many inhabitants. Incredibly, the worst was yet to come. In 1817, a group of American settlers arrived in the region, sent to reinforce Maine’s claims to Madawaska. The Americans therefore staked a claim in the northern part of the territory, in what is now Canada. In 1827, John Baker, a leader in the American settlement, began preparations to declare Madawaska the Republic of Aroostook. The Republic would then apply to the United States for annexation. An American flag was hoisted outside his home. On August 10, as Baker planned to declare Madawaska’s independence, a Canadian magistrate hauled down his flag. This show of force was sufficient to warn the Americans off their plan, and independence had not been declared when Baker was arrested in late September. The arrest set off howls of protest in Maine, and then in Washington. The U.S. sent troops to construct a fort at Madawaska’s southern edge and to construct an invasion road. The move was enough to force Britain to back down, and the border was submitted to the King of the Netherlands for arbitration in 1828. Three years later, he announced his decision—but neither Britain nor the United States accepted his proposed boundary. Maine began organizing a government in the region, but anyone who collaborated with Maine was arrested by the British authorities (except for French-speakers, who were exempted for political reasons). In 1838, a Maine agent was sent to take a census of Madawaska, and was arrested. In response, Maine sent 200 militiamen north to establish forts throughout the region. Britain sent regular troops in to face them. The so-called Aroostook War that followed was bloodless but tense. John Baker reappeared and took possession of of Madawaska in the name of the United States. This time, he was not arrested. No one wanted to set off the powderkeg. In 1842, the United States and Britain settled the Maine border once and for all in the Ashburton-Webster Treaty. Today, the distinct identity of Madawaska is remembered on both sides of the border. In New Brunswick, each Mayor of Edmundston is recognized as the honorary President of the Republic, and a flag is hoisted to commemorate

MAINE

Madawaska during an annual Acadian festival. To the south, however, Maine residents fly the old Acadian flag. It is a sign of Madawaska’s complicated identity that Americans salute an Acadian flag, while French Canadians salute a flag first hoisted by American separatists. Further Reading Farragher, John Mack. A Great And Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians From Their American Homeland. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2005. Gagnon, C. ‘‘The Border Dispute and the Aroostook War.’’ 2005. http:// www.upperstjohn.com/history/northeastborder.htm Martucci, David B. ‘‘Flags in Madawaska: Then and Now.’’ New England Journal of Vexillology, December, 1996. Tristam, Pierre. ‘‘American Impressions: Maine—The Quiet Border.’’ The Lakeland Ledger, March 29, 1999.

Maine. Maine, at the extreme northeast of the United States, is a rugged land. The temperatures are warm in the summer, but exceedingly cold in the five months or so of winter. The state’s terrain was shaped by glaciers, which left behind innumerable lakes and carved 2,000 islands out of the coastline. The land is not terribly productive, but Maine is close to the bountiful fisheries of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Dozens of Native American tribes (including, most notably, the Micmacs and Abnakis) lived in the region when European settlers arrived to found the town of Popham in 1607. The Abnakis were a fierce and warlike people, descendants of the ‘‘Skraelings’’ who had forced the Vikings to abandon North America. The English settlers fared poorly in the harsh climate, especially in the face of continued Abnaki attacks. Popham was soon abandoned, leaving the title of oldest English settlement to Jamestown, Virginia. The English attempted to plant several new colonies in the 1620s, but the same factors drove off the second wave of colonies as well. By 1700, only a pitiful handful of European settlements remained. The land was under the control of Massachusetts, whose colonial government had bought up most of the region’s grants. Maine continued to fare poorly throughout much of the eighteenth century. Abnaki raids increased in violence, as the French armed them to keep the English from establishing a secure foothold in Maine. It was not until the capture of Nova Scotia by the British in 1745 that the Abnakis began to relent. The 1763 Treaty of Paris, which ended the French and Indian War, forced France to give up its claims throughout North America. With their French patrons gone, the Abnakis subsided. After nearly two centuries, Maine was finally open to settlement. Massachusetts encouraged the population’s growth by offering a hundred acres to anyone willing to move there. The program worked spectacularly —from 1750 to 1800, the population of Maine increased more than tenfold from 12,000 to 150,000. Maine was a stout defender of the American cause during the American Revolution. Maine provided more than its share of men and loans to the

91

92

MAINE

Continental Congress. This conviction cost Maine dearly—the Royal Navy destroyed the main port of Falmouth by naval bombardment. In addition, the war and British blockade destroyed the livelihood of many Maine fishermen. After the Revolution’s end, many settlers began pressing for independence from Massachusetts, arguing that the state government cared little for Maine’s problems. The first discussion was sparked by an anonymous letter to the Falmouth Gazette in early 1785. By September of 1785, the debate had grown heated enough that a convention was called. Attendance was sparse, however, with several large towns completely unrepresented. The convention ended quietly, as the members decided not to advocate any direction in the absence of a clear mandate. Maine’s citizens were deeply divided on the issue of statehood. While rural inhabitants favored secession, the moneyed elite who controlled the maritime trade network (and thus much of the regional economy) were staunchly opposed. Massachusetts’ government issued an official letter arguing that the separation would hurt Maine’s economy and government. The convention drafted a petition for statehood, and presented it for approval before reconvening in early 1787. It was immediately apparent that the movement had faltered, as a majority of delegates had been instructed by their local governments to reject the petition. The convention referred the petition for statehood to a committee, which decided in September to submit the petition to Massachusetts’ General Court. The Massachusetts government rejected the petition out of hand, and this was enough to quiet the secession movement. New attempts to revive the movement sputtered on through the 1790s, to little effect. The stalemate lasted for 30 years, until the War of 1812 broke out. The war had an immediate and brutal effect on Maine’s economy, as the Royal Navy instituted a blockade that shut down Maine’s ports. In addition, Canadian troops seized Maine’s coast. Massachusetts, instead of rushing to Maine’s aid, decided to improve its own fortifications before allocating troops or money to the north. President Madison nationalized the Maine militia, but failed to provide arms or supplies. The British occupied Maine for the remainder of the war. The betrayal wounded Maine’s civic leaders deeply, and the statehood movement was revived. William King, who had commanded the Maine militia during the war, emerged as the principal spokesman for secession. By 1815, the statehood movement was strong enough to call for a referendum which indicated that sixty percent of the population favored statehood. Delegates were elected to a convention scheduled for September of 1816, but Massachusetts again stepped in, declaring the convention unlawful. Despite this growing consensus in Maine, the proponents of statehood still had to convince Massachusetts and Congress to consent to the division, something neither was prepared to do. This opposition crumbled in 1819, when proponents of statehood mounted a serious campaign in Boston. This push coincided with the eruption of tensions over the February request of Missouri to enter the United States. The move would unbalance the Congress, giving the Southern states and their support of slavery a permanent majority in the Senate. Desperate to find a way out of the crisis without outraging the South,

MARTHA’S VINEYARD

northern statesmen hit upon the idea of granting Maine its statehood and maintaining the delicate balance between the slave and free states. In June, the Massachusetts legislature approved a new convention. It further arranged a special referendum on independence, and authorized a constitutional convention if Maine’s voters wanted to separate. The process moved swiftly after the statehood movement won a resounding victory in the referendum, and Maine’s constitutional convention opened on October 11, 1819. On March 4, 1820, Congress admitted Maine to the United States, and the long struggle for statehood was at an end. Further Reading Brunelle, Jim. A Brief History of Maine. Portland, ME: Maine Historical Society, 1980. Williamson, William D. The History of Maine from Its First Discovery, A. D. 1602 to The Separation, A. D. 1820, Inclusive. Hallowell, ME: Glazier, Masters, and Company, 1832. Willis, William. The History of Portland, From 1632 To 1864: With a Notice of Previous Settlements Colonial Grants and Changes of Government in Maine. Portland, ME: Bailey and Noyes, 1865.

Martha’s Vineyard. Martha’s Vineyard is an island south of Cape Cod, part of the state of Massachusetts. First visited by Europeans in 1602, the island was purchased from the Wampanoag tribe and settled in 1642. The island’s population crashed after the arrival of the English settlers, as epidemics destroyed the Wampanoags. As the English became the majority, they settled into a routine life centered on agriculture and fishing. The island was removed from the political turmoil of the mainland. Martha’s Vineyard changed drastically when the nineteenth century boom in whaling began. The experienced sailors of the island turned to whaling, and the explosion of commerce brought a huge infusion of money. The boom lasted only for a generation, as whale oil was replaced by the widespread adoption of kerosene. The sailors turned back to fishing, but the island’s prosperity was replaced by the familiar grind of backbreaking labor. The island’s fortunes shifted again after the Second World War. The island’s natural beauty and rustic charm enchanted many men who trained at an airbase on Martha’s Vineyard during the war. The creation of interstates, a canal, and a ferry made it accessible. Finally, its location between Boston and New York made it an ideal holiday destination for millions. The birth of the tourist industry changed the island’s landscape. Today, 15,000 residents live on the island year-round, but another 100,000 spend their summers there. In addition, another 25,000 visit every day during the tourist season. Martha’s Vineyard, for all its economic clout, is still a small island. Its political power is virtually non-existent, given the dominance of Boston in Massachusetts state politics. This is a sore spot with the islanders, who are fiercely proud of their distinct identity. For many years, until the adoption of a law requiring legislative apportionment based solely on population, Martha’s Vineyard and

93

94

MINER’S COMPACT

the neighboring island of Nantucket were guaranteed a representative in the state House of Representatives. In 1976, a proposed redistricting called for the elimination of the seats for Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard and their inclusion in a district with a majority on the mainland. This was a direct result of a 1970 law which reduced the total number of state legislators. The islanders objected loudly to the loss of their representation, and a committee formed to agitate for statehood. The movement gained popularity, and on February 16 of 1977, the Selectmen of the seven towns on Martha’s Vineyard voted for secession. A date was set for a referendum. The furor garnered national attention. Within a month, both Connecticut and Vermont had offered to take in Martha’s Vineyard if the secession attempt succeeded. As the extent of discontent became apparent, the Massachusetts Government became conciliatory. A referendum was held, and residents of every town on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket voted for secession. The excitement dissipated, however. Many residents grew bored with what had seemed like a lark. The thrill of a fight over secession turned into the boredom of a number of long negotiations. As the tourist season opened that year, the business of secession took a back seat to the business of tourism. Eventually, neither Martha’s Vineyard nor Nantucket pressed their threat to secede. Today, both Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket are within the Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket district—and make up a minority of its population. The Martha’s Vineyard secession effort inspired a similar movement a year later, when the island of Grand Isle in Lake Champlain started a drive to secede from Vermont over a lack of representation and state services. The Grand Isle movement sputtered out without much fanfare. Further Reading Fellows, Lawrence. ‘‘Might It Be Nantucket, Conn.?’’ New York Times, July 24, 1977. Kifner, John. ‘‘Massachusetts Isles Wave Secession Flag.’’ New York Times, April 6, 1977. Meras, Phyllis. ‘‘What’s Doing On MARTHA’S VINEYARD.’’ New York Times, July 3, 1977. Regan, Eulalie. ‘‘The Gazette Chronicle.’’ Martha’s Vineyard Gazette, 2006. http://www.mvgazette.com Universal Press Syndicate. ‘‘Chain of Vermont islands opens drive for secession.’’ January 2, 1979.

Miner’s Compact. Iowa was first explored by Louis Joliet in 1673, as part of a concerted French effort to extend their control over the North American interior. However, the Iowa region was too remote from France’s base in Canada to be effectively exploited. At the time, the area was occupied by the Ioway tribe, which was pushed out around 1700 by the allied tribes of the Sauk and Fox, who were retreating southwest from their homes around the Great Lakes in the face of French military power. The Sauk and Fox controlled most of what is now Iowa through the entire period of French colonial control.

MINER’S COMPACT

In 1762, France was facing the loss of its North American empire after a disastrous war against the English. To prevent it from falling into English hands, France secretly transferred Louisiana to the Spanish crown. The Spanish neglected the area even more than the French had, aside from New Orleans and a handful of other settlements. Iowa’s isolation came to a close in 1788, when a French trader named Julien Dubuque arrived with a small party of allies from Prairie du Chien, in what is now Wisconsin. Dubuque established himself near what is now the city of Dubuque in northeastern Iowa. There, he took control of the area’s lead mines from the Fox Indians, who had been extracting the lead for trade. Dubuque’s relationship with the Fox was extremely cordial at first. As time went on, he gradually reduced the Fox to debt peonage. Soon, the Fox miners were virtually Dubuque’s slaves, working themselves to exhaustion to pay the interest on their mounting debts while Dubuque grew richer. Dubuque’s fortunes shifted when the United States purchased Louisiana. He hosted Zebulon Pike during Pike’s 1805-06 exploratory mission, and expanded the reach of his trading empire to include the swelling American market. However, the pressure of competition and the rising costs of shipping goods ate away at his success. By the time Dubuque died in 1810, he was bankrupt and had given half of his possessions to a creditor in St. Louis. The Fox took over the lead mines, operating them for their own benefit. When the War of 1812 broke out shortly after Dubuque’s death, Iowa’s white population fled. The Sauk and Fox, under the renowned chief Black Hawk, allied with the British and drove out every American they could find. The peace treaty between the Americans and the Sauk and Fox at the war’s end confirmed the allied tribes in their ownership of Iowa. The treaty also forced the Sauk and Fox to give up any claims to land in Illinois, a stipulation few of them were ready to accept. Despite the treaty, white squatters continued to filter across the Mississippi from Illinois and Wisconsin. In 1828, the tensions over the treaty began to boil over. The diehard Sauk and Fox, under the leadership of Black Hawk, began agitating to cross permanently back into Illinois and fight the Americans. In 1830, several respected Sauk and Fox chiefs died, freeing Black Hawk’s hand. In addition, the influential Winnebago religious leader White Cloud allied himself with Black Hawk and invited him to join his settlement near present-day Rock Island. The Winnebagos were refugees themselves, survivors of a vicious struggle with settlers in Wisconsin. The flight of the Winnebagos and the split of the Sauk and Fox tribes was combined with a third tragedy—the outbreak of war with the rapidly expanding Dakota, who were spreading west into the prairies from their home in Minnesota. The Dakota were themselves being pressed by the Ojibwa tribe, and were moving west into lands vacated by tribes such as the Mandan, whose settled agricultural villages suffered more harshly from epidemics than the nomadic Dakota. These combined blows left northern Iowa virtually abandoned—something which was eagerly observed from across the Mississippi. White settlers had been arriving in the area for years, squatting and staking out technically illegal mining claims. The mines at Dubuque were constantly

95

96

MOHAWK NATION

on their minds. In June of 1830, the Fox at Dubuque abandoned the mine for fear of Dakota attack. Almost immediately, perhaps 100 miners rowed west and took over the Dubuque mines. As squabbling began to break out over the richest pickings, the miners decided to form a government. On June 17, they formed the ‘‘Miner’s Compact.’’ The brief Compact was concerned entirely with land claims and methods of arbitration. It was, however, the first organized American government in the region. It also happened to be completely illegal, and the actions of the Miner’s Compact threatened the fragile peace in the region. News of the illegal seizure spread quickly. Less than a month after the Compact was signed, a military steamboat arrived, carrying three hundred Sauk and Fox notables and warriors on their way to peace talks with the Dakota and Menominee at Prairie du Chien. A Colonel Willoughby Morgan arrived in camp and read an official proclamation ordering the miners out of Iowa. The Compact’s leaders discussed the situation and rapidly reached a consensus. When army troops arrived a few days later, only four men were still there to be arrested. The Fox Indians soon returned and sold the vast majority of the lead the miners had extracted. The respite was brief. The Sauk and Fox retreated south to Rock Island again after another outbreak of border warfare with the Dakota/Menominee alliance. As Black Hawk’s refugees launched a desperate attempt to retake their ancestral lands in Illinois, they were shattered in the Black Hawk War of 1832 and forced to renounce all of their claims. In 1832, many of the Miner’s Compact’s signers returned to squat again, anticipating the legal cession of Dubuque after the ratification of the peace treaty with the Sauk and Fox. In the meantime, however, the federal government ordered them out again. This second expulsion was even shorter in duration. On June 1, 1833, the land was legally ceded to the United States and the squatters of the Miner’s Compact became the city fathers of the town of Dubuque. Further Reading DeKaury, Spoon. ‘‘Narrative of Spoon Decorah.’’ Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Volume 13. Madison, WI: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1895. Hoffmann, Mathias M. Antique Dubuque, 1673-1833. Dubuque, IA: Dubuque Telegraph-Herald Pres, 1930. Lewis, James. The Black Hawk War of 1832. 2000. http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/ blackhawk/index.html Sage, Leland L. A History of Iowa. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1974.

Mohawk Nation. The Mohawk people are one of the Five Tribes of the Iroqouis Confederacy. The Iroquois government lasted for several hundred years, and their influence was felt across much of the Great Lakes and New England. The Mohawk population decreased rapidly following contact with English settlers. By the time of the American Revolution, the Mohawk and their fellow Iroquois were under serious pressure from the burgeoning colonies. As the Revolution spread, the Iroquois seized the chance to ally with the British and retake their lands and rights from the colonists. When the Americans

MOHAWK NATION

won their war, the Iroquois were shattered, and a punitive peace stripped them of most of their lands. A group of Mohawks under Chief Joseph Brant fled to Canada, where they established a Mohawk presence in southern Quebec. This division was a disaster for the Mohawk people. Split by the border and subject to two different bureaucracies, the Mohawks could not pursue a united course of action or organize effectively to defend their rights. This state of frustration, all too common in the history of Native American affairs, found its outlet in the 1970s, after a number of highly publicized confrontations between the U.S. government and Native Americans, such as the Dakota Nation’s standoff at Wounded Knee and the Alcatraz occupation. This activism inspired action among the Mohawks. The first step was taken when the Quebec reservation of Kahnawake served eviction notices in 1973 to 1,500 non-Mohawks living on the reservation. Within two weeks, most of these residents had left. Tensions rose swiftly, and the Provincial Police of Quebec arrived, and a riot broke out. Mohawk activists from across Canada and New York arrived to help. Many spoke about their dissatisfaction in trying to hold onto less than three acres of land, when the Mohawk Nation had once owned millions. A group of activists brought the Mohawk claim before the U.S. Indian Claims Commission, which refused to consider compensation, saying that its jurisdiction only covered western tribes. A few of the activists decided on more direct action. On May 13, 1974, a group of these activists seized an abandoned 600-acre camp near Moss Lake and declared it the sovereign Mohawk territory of Ganienkeh (Land of the Flint), and further laid claim to nine million acres of northeastern New York. Relations between Ganienkeh and the surrounding white communities soon soured. The Mohawk leaders complained of local residents harassing Ganienkeh, and even firing shots at Mohawks. On October 28, 1974, a Mohawk patrol returned fire on a speeding car—but mistakenly hit a car containing a young man and a nine-year-old girl. The state government of New York immediately descended to investigate the shootings, and started eviction proceedings. When federal courts declined to hear appeals of the eviction, Assistant State Attorney General Mario Cuomo was dispatched to negotiate a settlement. The settlement was delayed because the Mohawks refused to lease or purchase the land: they felt that paying for what was rightfully theirs would weaken their claim. In May of 1977, the Mohawks accepted a lease of 5,700 acres near Altona (through a neutral third party trust) and the crisis was ended when they completed their move in October of that year. Over the next few years, the legislature of Clinton County (where Ganienkeh was relocated) tried several times to have the Mohawk lease terminated, without success. The success of the Ganienkeh action strengthened the hand of militant tradionalists throughout the Mohawk reservations. The traditionalists spoke out against alcoholism, unemployment, and other problems which plagued the Mohawks. One of the most difficult issues for the Mohawks at this time was the sudden arrival of the reservation gambling industry. Some of the radicals embraced the new source of revenue, while others denounced it as an insult to Mohawk tradition and culture.

97

98

MOHAWK NATION

In July of 1989, police raided an illegal gambling operation at the Akwesasne reservation in northwestern New York. In response, the militants organized themselves into a group called ‘‘The Warriors’’ under the leadership of a man named Kakwirakeron, who asserted that Mohawk ‘‘sovereignty depends on gambling money.’’ The Warriors erected barricades around the reservation. The police responded by erecting another ring of barricades around Akwesasne, and arrested Kakwirakeron at a press conference. Encouraged by Kakwirakeron’s arrest, a group of traditionalists opposed to the Warriors denounced gambling, and burned a casino. August and September saw Akwesasne devolve into virtual civil war, as factions sniped at each other and committed arson and vandalism. In March of 1990, the tensions rose sharply when someone shot a National Guard helicopter over Ganienkeh, forcing it to land. The Warrior contingent in Ganienkeh immediately called on Akwesasne for support. Police moved to surround Ganienkeh as well, but tensions there fell after the search of several Mohawk homes. The Warrior militants faded away into the back country of Ganienkeh. The last and most dramatic action of the Mohawk Warrior movement occurred at Kanesatake reservation in Quebec, where protests were erupting over the use of Mohawk burial grounds as a golf course expansion. The residents of Kanesatake erected blockades, and groups of Warriors from Akwesasne and Kahnawake arrived on July 11, 1990. Officers of the Quebec Police attacked the barricades, but retreated after they were fired upon. Anticipating a crackdown, Kahnawake barricaded itself in self-defense. The standoff there continued until August 29. Kahnawake dismantled its barricades after the appearance of Canadian federal troops with tanks. A few days later, the troops marched unopposed into Kanesatake. Negotiators for the Canadian government had accepted the Warrior assertion that they represented ‘‘Kanienkehake,’’ the Mohawk Nation, but it remains unclear whether this recognition was merely a stalling tactic until the military could be deployed. The Warriors barricaded themselves inside a clinic at Kanesatake. Despite shortages of food and potable water, they refused to surrender until September 26, 1990. In 1991, leaders of the Warrior movement accepted a settlement of $200,0000 from the government of Quebec, in return for waiving any legal claims arising from the siege. Further Reading Churchill, Ward. Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide, and Expropriation in Contemporary North America. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1993. Horn, Greg. ‘‘Ganienkeh celebrates 25th anniversary.’’ The Native Canadian 8, no. 15 (May 7, 1999). Horn, Greg. ‘‘Ganienkeh since 1977.’’ The Native Canadian 8, no. 16 (May 14, 1999). Hornung, Nick. One Nation Under the Gun: Inside the Mohawk Civil War. New York: Pantheon, 1991.

MORMONS

Mormons. The Mormons are a fascinating group, the most successful of America’s indigenous religious movements. Since the religion’s foundation in 1830, the Mormons have overcome extreme persecution and hardship. Today, there are over five million Mormons in the United States, and nearly another seven million throughout the rest of the world. The Mormon church controls billions of dollars in assets and continues to bring in huge amounts of money and new converts every year. Few would have predicted such success for the movement in its early days—in fact, the fear of persecution was enough to drive the Mormons halfway across the continent. Early Mormonism The Mormon religion is the legacy of Joseph Smith, its founder and prophet. Its early history is bound up with his own. Smith was born in Vermont in 1805. His family moved to the state of New York, where Smith spent much of his childhood near the town of Palmyra. The region was the center of an extraordinary religious revival during Smith’s childhood, becoming known as the ‘‘BurnedOver District’’ after the number of fiery religious movements that had their origin there. Many of the people who sought after religious renewal during this time also sought perfection of their earthly lives—the period that gave birth to Mormonism also saw the foundation of the Shakers, the spiritual commune at Oneida, and the modern spiritualist movement. Smith first announced that he had been visited by God at the age of 15. Even at the height of the Burned-Over District’s enthusiasm, this was considerably outside the pale, and Smith received a great deal of skepticism and harassment. Undaunted, Smith persevered in his beliefs. At the age of 18, he began writing what would become the Book of Mormon. He published the Book of Mormon in 1828. The Book of Mormon is an extraordinary work, which asserts that the New World was populated by a small group of exiled Hebrews around 600 B.C. Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon was transcribed onto golden plates, which had been buried near his home in Palmyra, and that an angel had revealed to him the language the book had been written in. The book struck a number of chords simultaneously among its intended audience—the American people of the time. It bridged the Old World and the New World, while explaining the then-mysterious origins of the Native Americans and the mounds which appeared across much of the Mississippi Valley. The appearance of Hebrews—and, indeed, of the resurrected Jesus Christ —in America served to puff up American pride and stroke its nascent sense of exceptional destiny. Finally, the stark contrast between good and evil in the book suited the appetite of the time. It was perhaps destined to become a famous book, and it was certainly destined to become controversial. Critics were quick to descend on Smith and assault the many factual inconsistencies in his book (such as having the Israelites encounter cows and oxen in America, centuries before those animals were introduced by the Spanish). They were also angered by continuing revelations of Smith’s development of a unique Mormon theology, which is extremely radical in many ways. The Mormon church, for instance, believes that all human souls are physically conceived

99

100

MORMONS

by God and God’s wife. This alone was enough to drive many contemporary Americans into a fury. However, Smith’s early followers were undaunted. In April of 1830, Smith and five of his early converts incorporated the Church of Christ (which would later become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Within a year, Smith had 1,000 converts. One of these converts donated a large parcel of land outside Kirtland, Ohio. At the time, Smith was planning to move west, and to build a new city on the Missouri River, where he would convert the Indians to Mormonism and usher in a golden age. The move to Kirtland fit this plan, and also allowed Smith to avoid the growing anger and persecution in New York. In 1831, the bulk of the Mormons moved to Kirtland. While the Mormons began building a community in Kirtland, Smith sent a handpicked vanguard to begin construction of the movement’s new home in Missouri. The Mormons quickly met opposition from Missouri’s population. As elsewhere, they ridiculed the Mormons’ beliefs and were angered by their growing political power. In 1833, a mob drove the Mormons from their Missouri settlement, Far West. Missouri’s governor, Lilburn Boggs, apologized for the action and promised assistance if the Mormons returned. Smith responded by sending 200 picked men on a march from Kirtland, including one of his most promising lieutenants, Brigham Young. Upon their arrival as an armed body, the governor backed off his pledge. A large group of Missourians gathered, intent on attacking the Mormon force. As the Mormons awaited the Missourians, a storm gathered and the Missourians called off their assault. As the Missouri settlement began to take root again, the main Mormon settlement in Kirtland was thriving. Dissent, however, was starting to take its toll. Many Mormons were upset with the church’s tight control over the community. Many people left the church, and began organizing to fight Smith’s control over the movement. By 1838, death threats were coming from the former Mormons. As Smith’s position in Kirtland became untenable, he ordered the church moved again. He left for the Missouri settlement in January of 1838, and the Mormons followed him. Tensions rose as the Mormons arrived. In response, the Mormons organized an extralegal militia, the Danites, to patrol their territory. As the Danites took revenge for acts of arson and assault by the Missourians, the region descended into a state of near anarchy. As feelings hardened on both sides, Smith made an incendiary speech on October 14, 1838. He declared that ‘‘I will be unto this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘The Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’’’ This uncompromising rhetoric helped to usher in the final act in the Missouri chapter of Mormon history. On October 27, 1838, Governor Boggs issued what would become known as the ‘‘Extermination Order,’’ which called on Missourians to expel the Mormons by any means necessary. The order is chilling in its finality: The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so, to any extent you may think necessary.

MORMONS

The response was immediate, but the Extermination Order was not the beginning of bloodshed. Three days after it was issued, 17 Mormons were killed at Haun’s Mill by a renegade militia unit—one which had not even received the Extermination Order. Nevertheless, it was viewed as part of a systematic campaign to destroy the Mormons, who left outlying settlements and banded together at Far West. On November 30, Smith and several of his ‘‘Apostles,’’ as he called his 12 principal lieutenants, surrendered to avoid further bloodshed. Militia leaders were barely dissuaded from executing the leaders outright in a military tribunal. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, the senior leaders left, took over leadership of the Mormon movement. They oversaw the evacuation of all Mormons from Missouri, to Quincy, Illinois. The governor of Illinois welcomed the Mormons, who began constructing a new settlement there called Nauvoo. Joseph Smith and his fellow prisoners escaped on April 6, 1839, most likely with the quiet complicity of Missouri authorities who wanted to avoid further publicity and the headache of a public trial. Nauvoo and Exile The Mormon settlement at Nauvoo grew quickly in size and power. In 1841, Brigham Young arrived from a missionary trip in Britain with several hundred new converts. Joseph Smith, anxious over the settlement’s security and determined to protect what they had built, asked the governor for permission to form a militia unit, the Nauvoo Legion. The swelling power of the Mormons and the Nauvoo Legion excited the fears of their neighbors in Illinois just as it had in Missouri. The first revelations of Mormon polygamy in 1841 were also sending shockwaves through American society. As public opinion hardened against the Mormons, Smith grew increasingly defensive and marshaled his power more jealously. 1844 marked a turning point in Mormonism’s development. Smith, frustrated with official apathy towards anti-Mormon prejudice, took matters into his own hands. He increased the size of the Nauvoo Legion to 4,000 troops and acquired 30 cannons. He wrangled an appointment as lieutenant general of the state militia out of the governor, making him the highest-ranking military officer since George Washington. Every step emboldened him to continue gathering power. He petitioned Congress to make Nauvoo a territory, unsurprisingly without success. He declared his candidacy for President. At the same time, he had himself crowned King of the ‘‘Kingdom of God.’’ This move was as much mystical as it was political, but the nuances were lost on those who opposed his growing influence. In June of 1844, a group of Mormon dissidents decided to fight Smith and especially his new teaching on polygamy. They started a newspaper in Nauvoo which mercilessly attacked the Mormon leadership. Smith responded quickly, ordering the papers seized and the printing press destroyed. This was too much for the state authorities, who indicted Smith and the Nauvoo City Council. Smith declared martial law and fled across the Mississippi River to Iowa. This act dismayed many of his followers, and Smith returned to Illinois to surrender to the authorities.

101

102

MORMONS

While Smith awaited trial at the jail in Carthage, Illinois, on June 27, 1844, a mob gathered outside. At first, Smith was overjoyed—he had sent orders to the Nauvoo Legion to free him. It soon became apparent, however, that this was a lynch mob. They easily overpowered the guards, and dragged Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum outside. The two were shot and killed. The news of Smith’s death sent a shockwave through Nauvoo. Many both inside and outside of the Mormon movement believed the church would collapse without Smith’s leadership. Factions began maneuvering to take over the church. Brigham Young easily emerged from this to become the Mormons’ new leader, despite a strong challenge from Smith’s family members. A third candidate also arose in James Strang, a recent convert who purported to have a letter from Smith naming him as his chosen successor. This was shown to be a forgery, but Strang continued to gather followers, largely those who were opposed to Young’s tightening control and the practice of polygamy. A small group of these dissidents left Nauvoo to join Strang at Beaver Island in Lake Michigan, where Strang would declare himself a king in 1850. As Brigham Young took up the reins of leadership, Nauvoo’s power continued to swell. In September of 1844, an anti-Mormon mob was barely turned away from Nauvoo by state forces. Nauvoo’s population rivaled that of Chicago. Nauvoo also had unique powers in that its charter made it separate from its county government, meaning that the church controlled an independent judiciary and law enforcement. Even so, this virtual independence was precarious. Young sent scouts west to begin the process of finding a new home outside the reach of the United States. The government of Illinois placed mounting pressure on Nauvoo, revoking its charter in January of 1845. Young responded by organizing a provisional government around the church’s machinery—the City of Joseph. This new government was even more tightly under Young’s control than Nauvoo’s had been, but it was destined to be temporary. In the fall of 1845, preparations began to move the Mormons west to their chosen destination—Utah. Neighboring settlers urged the process along by burning outlying Mormon farms, and the cycle of violence and retribution began to burn again. Deseret The migration was an immense logistical task and preparations took much longer than anticipated. A volunteer force, the Mormon Battalion, fought in the Mexican War—this served the dual purpose of demonstrating Mormon loyalty while moving a sizable force of Mormons west at the government’s expense. Before the Mexican War, the U.S. government had winked at Mormon plans to move into what was then Mexican territory, thinking that they could use the Mormons as a bargaining chip—and a useful ally—once they were in Utah. Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, who would later run for President against Abraham Lincoln, was a vital part of this quiet dialogue between the Mormons and the federal government. In July of 1847, Mormon surveyors began clearing the site of what would become Salt Lake City. By June of 1848, the migration was finally underway. A vast caravan headed west to Utah, many of the Mormons hauling their possessions in handcarts across half of North America. By the end of September, the

MORMONS

last stragglers had arrived. Young acted quickly to consolidate the Mormon hold on the region. In 1849, he planted colonies throughout Utah, and most of what would become the neighboring states as well. He forbade Mormons from participating in the 1849 Gold Rush in California, although revenues from a church-financed mining operation and from emigrants passing through Mormon territory provided much of the church’s income in the early years of settlement. Young also moved to establish the Mormon church’s political hold over the Great Basin. In March of 1849, he called a convention to draft a constitution for what the Mormons called the state of Deseret, after the word for ‘‘honeybee’’ in the Book of Mormon. The constitution was quickly approved and Young was elected Governor on March 12. The Mormon claims for Deseret took in Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho, wide swaths of Arizona and New Mexico, and a sizable part of southern California, including San Diego. Official recognition was much slower. Anti-Mormon prejudice played a large part in this, as did reluctance to upset the balance in Congress between free and slave states. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Mormon territory was given the land inside the modern boundaries of Utah and most of Nevada as well as parts of Colorado and Wyoming, although the federal government was not inclined to give approval to a name from the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young was appointed Governor of the Territory of Utah. In 1851, federal appointees arrived in Utah. By October, all of them had left, claiming that Young was a despot who had obstructed their attempts to perform their duties. Relations between Utah and the federal government continued to deteriorate, even as the Mormons continued to grow and to develop their territory, fighting a brief war with the area’s indigenous Ute tribe. Tensions rose sharply in 1854, when a federal surveyor was killed in Utah. Suspicions fell on the Mormons, after Ute Indians who were arrested for the act were found not guilty. As a matter of fact, the Utes had welcomed the surveyor, hoping that the federal government would side with them against the Mormons. In 1857, the accusations gained public attention. The Democratic administration of James Buchanan seized on the furor, hoping to distract attention from the growing crisis over slavery and federal inability to halt the bloodshed between free state and slave state factions in Kansas. Governor Young denounced the federal government, and embraced the nullification doctrine. By asserting that he could pick and choose which federal laws would be applicable to Utah, Young allied himself with the most radical wing of the states’ rights movement and threw down a gauntlet to the government which could not be ignored. Congress declared Utah to be in a state of insurrection. In May of 1857, Buchanan ordered 2,500 soldiers west to occupy Utah—onesixth of the U.S. Army. The Utah War and its Aftermath Young declared martial law as soon as the news reached him. He remustered the Nauvoo Legion and ordered it to harass the approaching U.S. troops by burning fodder and sabotaging their equipment. He also ordered Mormon settlers to abandon their outposts and return to Salt Lake City. He bided his time,

103

104

MORMONS

hoping that friends of the Mormons, especially the patrician Colonel Thomas Kane, would be able to negotiate a settlement. At the same time, the military confrontation took a much darker turn. While the U.S. military continued its march towards Salt Lake City, the civilian Baker-Fancher Expedition was crossing through Utah on its way to California. On September 7, the wagon train was attacked by snipers at a place called Mountain Meadows. The wagon train circled, but the settlers were exposed with little food and water. After a week-long siege, the group surrendered. The survivors were massacred, and everything with the least bit of value stripped from the wagons. Over 140 people were killed. A handful of children survived, and were adopted by local Mormon families. When news reached the east in October, the rest of America exploded in fury. Mormon authorities asserted that Indians had killed the settlers, but few believed them. There appears to be little doubt today that the massacre was ordered by the Mormon church’s hierarchy. The U.S. troops were itching to get into Utah, but winter conditions made it impossible. They spent the winter at Fort Bridger, a trading post which the Mormons had burned down as the troops approached. As the spring thaw drew near, the soldiers were in a foul mood. They had been harassed and starved by Mormon guerrillas throughout the winter months. Preparing for the worst, Brigham Young ordered Salt Lake City evacuated. A small rear guard force stayed behind to burn the city down and deny any possible benefit to the federal troops. Colonel Thomas Kane had used his influence with President Buchanan to get himself appointed as a mediator. Kane worked long and hard to forge a compromise and finally succeeded. In early 1858, the federally appointed governor entered Utah and took office. The military agreed to stay forty miles outside of Salt Lake City. While the U.S. troops were encamped, Young refused to call back the Mormons from their refugee settlements in southern Utah. A peace commission was sent to help end the tensions, but the U.S. military wanted no part of it. While negotiations were underway, Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston marched his troops through Salt Lake City to a new bivouac southwest of the city. Brigham Young resigned himself to the federal presence. A few days later, he told the Mormons to return to their homes. He patiently bore a series of provocations by the U.S. troops, giving them no reason to break the fragile peace. The Mormons were exhausted. The Utah War had only been the latest in a series of trials over the last few years, including drought, war with the Utes, a plague of locusts, and a harsh winter that killed most of the Mormons’ cattle in 1856. Young’s scorched earth campaign and forced relocation had destroyed much of what was left of Utah’s meager economy. In addition, many Mormons left the territory—and the church—in disgust over the confrontation with the federal government and the Mountain Meadows massacre. The days of Mormon nationalism were over.

MORMONS

Utah Becomes a State In the aftermath of what became known as the Utah War, the Mormons settled into a less ambitious role. They reoccupied most of their former territory, but also devoted themselves to economic development. The 1860s saw a massive infusion of outside capital, as the government and industry built railroads and telegraph lines through the territory. The Mormons continued their attempts at statehood. After the governor and Colonel Johnston both left for the Confederacy in 1861, a new set of federal officials arrived who despised their Mormon charges. Given the deteriorating relations, the Mormons resorted to a shadow Deseret government, with Brigham Young as governor. The federal officials found themselves with little to do, as Young and the Deseret legislature assumed power over much of life in the territory. The end of the Civil War brought little respite. The Republicans, whose radical wing was firmly entrenched in Washington, brought increasing pressure to bear on Utah. In the 1856 election, they had attacked polygamy and slavery as ‘‘twin relics of barbarism.’’ Having dealt with slavery, the Republicans turned their eye to Utah. To ease the tensions and prove that Mormon women were not slaves, the territorial legislature recognized the right of women to vote in municipal and territorial elections. Utah was second after Wyoming in granting women’s suffrage. The act did little to appease the outside world. The 1870s saw a series of federal anti-polygamy laws, and increasing attacks on the Mormons. In 1871, Brigham Young was arrested for polygamy. He defended himself in court with dignity and humility, although this only served to further infuriate federal prosecutors. The case finally ended with Young’s vindication just before his death in 1877. In the same year, John D. Lee was executed for his part in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was the only person ever convicted for participating in the 1857 atrocity. The 1880s saw an easing of tensions between Utah and the federal government. The election of Grover Cleveland in 1884 to the Presidency marked the turning point. Cleveland, a Democrat, was less inclined to attack the Mormons. He appointed new and less antagonistic officials to Utah. In 1887, Utah launched its sixth attempt at statehood, which included a clause in the proposed state constitution banning polygamy. Mormon church leaders quietly approved of the gambit, urging Mormon delegates at the constitutional convention to approve the measure. Congress was less than impressed. They demanded more specific actions, which the Mormons could not agree with. The statehood movement failed yet again, and instead Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker bill, which revoked the women’s vote in Utah, abolished the Nauvoo Legion, confiscated the Mormon church’s property, and introduced a test oath requiring all voters, officeholders, and jury members in Utah to renounce polygamy. After this calamity, the Mormon leadership devoted itself to ending the church’s long political isolation. It launched a massive public relations effort and hired a number of lobbyists. It wooed a number of influential Republicans, including Senator James G. Blaine, a future Presidential candidate. Blaine was

105

106

MOUNT VERNON DISTRICT

instrumental in blocking the Cullom-Strubble Bill, which would have denied all Mormons the right to vote. After long consultations, the Mormon Church’s President, Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto submitting to federal anti-polygamy laws and renouncing polygamy as a Mormon teaching. The announcement sparked bitter debate within the church, and a number of Mormons left the church—to this day, an estimated 30,000 people still practice polygamy in sects which splintered from the Mormons over Woodruff’s action. With polygamy out of the way, the Mormons then disbanded the Mormon People’s Party, which had served as the church’s de facto political arm. The Mormons then joined the two major parties, with effort made to maintain a close balance. However, the Republicans gained a slight advantage. This made Democrats in Congress hesitant to grant statehood, but they finally assented in 1894 while stipulating that Utah would not become a state until after the end of the current term. On January 4, 1896, Utah was admitted as a state. Today, the Mormon Church is staunchly pro-American. For most Americans, it is extremely difficult to picture the Mormons as an alien group which spent decades virtually at war with the rest of the United States. Despite the secrecy of the splinter polygamist sects, who are extremely antagonistic towards the federal government, Mormons are now an integral part of the American nation. They maintain a cohesive and distinct identity, but it is difficult to see a set of conditions which would revive the separatist ambitions of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Further Reading Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. Bushman, Richard L. Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1984. Denton, Sally. American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857. New York: Alfred Knopf, 2003. Kephart, William M. and William W. Zellner. Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles, Fifth Edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Ostling, Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. New York: HarperCollins, 2000. Porter, Perry L. A Chronology of Federal Legislation on Polygamy. http://www. xmission.com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm Powell, Alan Kent. Utah History Encyclopedia. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1994. Van Wagoner, Richard S. Mormon Polygamy: A History. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1989.

Mount Vernon District—see Jefferson Territory. Muscongus Island. Muscongus Island is located off the shore of Maine. In 1860, the island was inadvertently left off the state’s official maps. Muscongus,

MUSKOGEE

then called Louds Island, was therefore technically not part of Maine or, therefore, the United States. Despite this technicality, neither the islanders nor the inhabitants of Bristol, a mainland town that Muscongus Island was attached to administratively, pressed the issue. This detente broke down during the election of 1860. Bristol was overwhelmingly Republican, and Louds Island overwhelmingly Democratic. The county recorder in Bristol was dismayed to find that these Democratic votes swung Bristol’s vote against Abraham Lincoln. A member of the recorder’s staff remembered the official map, and the votes of Muscongus Island were discarded due to that technicality. In retaliation, Muscongus Island declared its independence from Bristol and Maine with the slogan ‘‘No Votes, No Taxes,’’ although Muscongus was careful to declare its allegiance to the United States. When commissioners from Bristol arrived to enforce the draft, they were reportedly driven off by housewives who hurled potatoes. To affirm that this was an act of contempt aimed solely at Bristol, the families of Muscongus Island gathered up enough money to buy exemption from the draft, along with an extra 1,000 dollars. This show of patriotism represented a painful sacrifice for the poor fishermen of Muscongus Island, and the Maine government left the islanders in peace. In return, the Muscongans decided not to press their point during the Civil War, dutifully paying their taxes and participating in state government. The declaration of independence was formally withdrawn in 1934. Further Reading Jones, John Morton. ‘‘Reflections of a Mainiac.’’ Redlands, CA: Redlands Fortnightly Club. Presented March 1, 2001. Strauss, Erwin W. How To Start Your Own Country. Port Townshend, WA: Breakout Productions, Inc., 1999. Verrill, A. Hyatt. Romantic and Historic Maine. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1936.

Muskogee. Before European settlement, a wide swath of the southeastern United States across Georgia and Alabama and south into northern Florida was occupied by a group of related tribes. These tribes spoke closely related dialects and practiced very similar customs. The tribes are usually lumped under the name ‘‘Creek,’’ but the name ‘‘Muskogee’’ has come into general usage among specialists for the alliance, and the region which they controlled. Early History and Alexander McGillivray English contact with the Muskogee peoples was delayed when the colony of Virginia armed a tribe called the Westoes in the 1670s. The Westoes used their European arms to capture slaves from their traditional tribal enemies, who were then sold to the Virginians. The slave trade, which erected a formidable barrier between the Virginia settlement and the interior tribes, was crushed by another English colony, South Carolina, in 1680. After the Carolinians soundly defeated the Westoes in battle, they opened trading relationships with many of the southeastern tribes, including the Muskogee. In order to gain more native slaves, the English played the tribes against

107

108

MUSKOGEE

each other, creating a culture of reciprocal bloodshed and slave-raiding that threatened the collapse of all the Native American tribes in the region. In 1715, one Muskobee tribe, the Yamasee, organized a massive revolt against English slavery that nearly destroyed the colony of South Carolina. Their success worked against them, as other Muskogee tribes allied with the English to destroy them and restore the balance of power in the region. In the wake of the Yamasee War, however, relations between the English and Muskogee deteriorated again. As the English-Muskogee trade shifted from slaves to deerskins, and as the French in Louisiana began arming the Choctaw and Alabama tribes, the English exerted themselves to renew friendly relations with the Muskogee. The position of the Muskogee declined throughout the eighteenth century. The English traders could command a steep price from Muskogee anxious for manufactured goods. This economic imbalance was exacerbated by steeply decreasing deer populations, and by the spread of alcoholism. This economic crisis sparked a war between the Muskogee and Choctaw over deer hunting grounds. This weakened and dependent state shattered the traditions and consensus of the tribes and allowed some Muskogee to escape the society’s strong strictures against private accumulation of wealth. Me´tis, the descendants of English traders and Muskogee women, inherited their fathers’ business contacts and their mothers’ esteem among the tribes. The most influential of these new chiefs was Alexander McGillivray. McGillivray fought alongside the British against the United States during the American Revolution. After the war’s end, McGillivray threw in his lot with Spain, a relationship which was conveniently also personally lucrative, as McGillivray formed a tight relationship with the Spanish-licensed trading company of Panton, Leslie and Company, which gave him control over most of the Muskogee economy. In the 1780s, McGillivray’s growing power combined with uncertainty over the intentions of the new government of the United States to create unrest in the Muskogee nation. McGillivray skillfully managed to avoid the threat of civil war while maintaining Muskogee’s precarious independence. This delicate balance was upset by growing American immigration, and in 1787 four Muskogees were killed by trespassing Georgians. This sparked a series of reprisals which escalated on both sides. McGillivray travelled to New York, where he finally managed to draw up a treaty acceptable to the Americans and the Muskogee in 1790, despite attempts at bribery and sabotage by a Spanish diplomat anxious to stoke Muskogee hostility towards the U.S. and maintain them as a buffer state. McGillivray died three years later, and Muskogee’s new leaders were unable to continue his delicate tightrope act. William Bowles and the Republic of Muskogee William Augustus Bowles was a British trader who became the next great leader of the Muskogee. He joined a Loyalist regiment at the outbreak of the American Revolution, at the age of 13. He was stationed at Pensacola, but was dismissed from service in 1779 for insubordination. Bowles spent the next two years in the Muskogee hinterland. He was adopted into the tribe and moved rapidly up the tribal hierarchy as a newly minted chief, an advancement which

MUSKOGEE

alarmed the aging McGillivray. Bowles was forced to flee, and took his revenge by entering the service of Miller, Bonnamy and Company, a British trading firm. Bowles was determined to strike at McGillivray, and at his supporters in the Spanish government, who now owned Florida again. In 1792, as McGillivray was near death, Bowles led a troop of Muskogee to capture the stores of Panton, Leslie and Company at the northwestern port of St. Marks. The Spanish invited the 28-year-old Bowles to a parley, which he naively attended. He was immediately arrested, and Bowles spent the next seven years traveling in and out of Spanish jails in Cuba, Spain, and the Phillippines. With Bowles in exile and McGillivray dead, the Muskogee were without effective leadership. Unscrupulous white settlers attempted to encroach on Muskogee land, notably in the Trans-Oconee Republic incident. The next move came when Bowles returned to Florida in September of 1799. He formed a camp in the Panhandle and began recruiting warriors. The Spanish got wind of his efforts and seized his camp in February of 1800. Bowles responded by seizing St. Marks again, threatening a Spanish garrison nearby. Alarmed, the governor of Florida ordered Bowles’s execution. Undaunted, Bowles besieged the garrison. After a desultory attempt at defense, the demoralized troops surrendered the fort to Bowles on May 19, 1800. Bowles, who styled himself the ‘‘General and Director of the Creek and Cherokee Nations,’’ was at the height of his success. A ship from Miller, Bonnamy and Company, which was carrying him fresh supplies and munitions, was seized by a Spanish patrol. A traitor escaped from the fort and settled a private vendetta with Bowles by detailing the state of the defenses to a Spanish flotilla sailing to St. Marks. The Spanish, overjoyed to learn of Bowles’s weakness, closed rapidly. The ships crept up under the cover of a white flag of truce. Once the ships were at point-blank range, the Spanish suddenly ran out of talking points and the cannon opened up. After less than two hours, Bowles was forced to surrender the fort and flee into the woods. Bowles reinvented himself as a guerrilla leader, raiding throughout northwestern Florida. He became more of a nuisance when Miller, Bonnamy and Company succeeded in smuggling more weapons to him in 1801. After two years, the Spanish finally managed to capture Bowles through treachery in May of 1803. It was the end of organized Muskogee resistance, and of Bowles, who died shortly after his arrest in a Havana prison. The Rebellion of 1813 and Exile The Muskogee nation continued to resist American encroachment, in their own homeland and through coordination with the closely related Seminole tribe of Florida. By the 1810s, the Muskogee were thoroughly alarmed by the pressure of American settlement and by the erosion of tradition. Unlike McGillivray’s usurpation of traditional power through his wealth or the adventurism of Bowles, this movement was deeply rooted in the faith and hopes of the Muskogee. Several factors combined to spark rebellion. First, an earthquake struck the Madrid Fault in the midwestern United States, spawning several aftershocks between December of 1811 and February of 1812. The Native American nations

109

110

MUSKOGEE

took this as a portent—and were soon confirmed in this belief by the rise of the Shawnee political leader Tecumseh, who advocated a union of all Native Americans against the United States. Locally, the Muskogee were angered over the forced cession of several million acres of land to the United States, and by the presence of the U.S. agent Benjamin Hawkins. Hawkins made the Muskogee uneasy through his constant criticism and advocacy of reform and industrialization. Into this atmosphere of turmoil erupted a prophetic movement. Several influential shamans, dubbed ‘‘Red Sticks’’ after a Muskogee symbol of war, called upon the Muskogee to expel the Americans. In July of 1813, these voices sparked a rebellion. Muskogee who refused to join the revolt were killed. Wealthy Americans nearby jumped at the opportunity to intervene in what was still a Muskogee civil war, and grab the tribe’s land. Their cause was irrevocably strengthened by the battle of Fort Mims in August, when Red Sticks killed 250 settlers and militiamen, while losing almost four hundred dead and wounded themselves. After this battle, the Americans roused themselves and an army of 3500 crushed the Red Sticks in a series of battles throughout the winter. The war’s last major action was the American assault on the town of Tohopeka in March of 1814, where nearly a thousand Red Stick warriors were killed. At the ensuing peace negotiations, Andrew Jackson (who had led the victorious military force) laid down harsh terms. The Muskogee were forced to cede fourteen million acres. The Muskogee attempted to maintain themselves in their reduced territory, but conflict with encroaching settlers continued, and a series of reciprocal attacks finally escalated into the Creek War of 1835. After a short campaign, the Muskogee were forced to capitulate. This time, the defeat of the Muskogee was complete. Andrew Jackson, now President, forced the Muskogee to leave their ancestral lands and travel thousands of miles west to Oklahoma. The migration, a brutal march without sufficient supplies, shelter, or food, became a horrifying ordeal. 10,000 Muskogee died on the trail to Oklahoma. Once there, the Muskogee attempted to rebuild their lives. They organized themselves as a constitutional republic, much as the Cherokee and the other three ‘‘Civilized Tribes’’—the Seminoles, Chickasaws, and Choctaws—had upon their arrival. The tribal republics maintained their sovereignty, and attempted to ensure their independence by declaring allegiance to the Confederate cause during the Civil War. After the war’s conclusion, the Republican Congress enacted a punishing series of reprisals, stripping Southern states of their governments, exacting reparations, and imposing a strict military occupation in many areas. In Oklahoma, the federal government stripped the Five Civilized Tribes of their lands in the territory’s west, which were soon filled by other tribes removed from the path of settlement. The tribal republics were demolished, and a single administration erected. As white settlers flooded into the state, the Muskogee united with the other tribes to form a new state separate from the new settlers, called Sequoyah. Congress stifled this movement, and the Native American republics were united with the white invaders in the state of Oklahoma.

MUSKOGEE

Further Reading Covington, James W. The Seminoles of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1993. Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. Old Hickory’s War: Andrew Jackson and the Quest For Empire. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1996. Martin, Joel W. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogee’s Struggle for a New World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1991. Stevens, William Bacon. A History of Georgia, from its first discovery by Europeans to the adoption of the present constitution in 1798, vol. 2. Philadelphia: E.H. Butler and Company, 1859. Tebeau, Charlton W. A History of Florida. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1971. Whittaker, Arthur Preston. The Mississippi Question 1795-1803: A Study in Trade, Politics, and Diplomacy. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1962.

111

N Nantucket—see Martha’s Vineyard. Natchez. The region from New Orleans to the Gulf Coast of Florida was known before the American Revolution as ‘‘the Floridas.’’ East Florida consisted of the peninsula, while West Florida extended from the peninsula west to the Mississippi River. The region was ceded to the British after the Seven Year’s War, in 1763. The British extended the boundary of West Florida northwards by over 100 miles. When the Floridas were returned to Spain by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Spanish claimed the new northern border, while the United States insisted on the old border, at the 31st parallel. The population of the so-called ‘‘Natchez Strip’’ was largely English-speaking, and the disparity between the English settlers and Spanish authorities grew under the second Spanish occupation as British Loyalists fled the United States. The stage was set for a major dispute between the two nations. Spain’s presence in the area was weakly maintained and dependent on the goodwill of its neighbors. Louisiana and East Florida were subject politically to the Captain-General of Cuba, but its budget was allocated by the Viceroy of New Spain, in Mexico City. Consequently, the colonies were ignored, underdeveloped, and poorly protected. Spain’s position in 1795 was poor to begin with. Her foreign minister, Manuel de Godoy, was eager to secure the frontier on the cheap, through a political settlement. He signed the Treaty of San Lorenzo, which pledged free access to the Mississippi for American traders and renounced Spanish attempts to build a buffer zone of independent Native American states between East Florida and the United States. The treaty would, upon ratification, return the Natchez Strip to the United States. This brief detente ended when Spain was forced to cede Louisiana to France. Given the new realities in North America, Godoy decided to throw in with France and discard his attempts to reconcile with the United States. Spain announced that it would not cede the Natchez Strip. The governor, Gayoso, maintained a fragile peace, despite increasing chaos as immigration and restrictive Spanish land law created new pressures. The state of Georgia simply ignored the boundary and organized a county within Spanish borders. In early 1797, Gayoso unilaterally ordered a withdrawal south. On February 24, 1797, the United States sent federal commissioner Andrew Ellicott to negotiate with Gayoso. The attention this drew brought a flurry of orders and countermands from Gayoso’s higher-ups, and Gayoso halted his evacuation while the negotiations continued. For several months, the debates

114

NAUVOO

reflected the larger stalemate throughout the Natchez Strip. Neither the Americans nor the Spanish had enough military force to oust the other. Despite the English-speaking Protestant nature and American sympathies of the population, Gayoso was respected as a skilled and honest governor. The situation exploded in June. Protestant preachers had been exhorting the colonists to overthrow the ‘‘despotism of Rome and Madrid.’’ Gayoso responded by arresting a Baptist preacher. Public outrage was sparked immediately, and by June 22, Gayoso had retreated to a fort. In response, several landowners took control of a large mob and foisted themselves upon Gayoso as a committee, to assist in restoring order. Gayoso agreed reluctantly and prudently excused himself to New Orleans near the end of July. With Gayoso gone, the landowners organized a Committee of Public Safety. Although the Spanish ruled in name through a pro-Spanish settler named Stephen Minor, the Natchez Committee was the only meaningful authority in the area. In November the Spanish attempted to send a new governor, Colonel Carlos Grandpre´. The settlers again erupted, and Spain finally resigned itself to the loss of the territory. In early December, a detachment of American troops arrived. Meanwhile, the United States had hammered out a final agreement with Spain, which placed the Natchez territory under American control. In March, the last Spanish garrison was withdrawn. On April 7, 1798, Congress created the Mississippi Territory, which encompassed Natchez. On August 6, the Territorial Governor arrived and the Natchez Committee was disbanded. Further Reading James, D. Clayton. Antebellum Natchez. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1968. Whittaker, Arthur Preston. The Mississippi Question 1795-1803: A Study in Trade, Politics, and Diplomacy. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1962.

Nauvoo—see Mormons. Negro Fort. During the age of European colonization in North America, Florida was first claimed and colonized by the Spanish, although the area passed to English rule in 1763 as a result of the Seven Years’ War. After the American Revolution, British Florida was returned to Spanish rule. The province was troublesome from the start, difficult to settle and expensive to maintain. The Spanish government could no longer afford the cost of garrisoning the Floridas. In order to hold the Floridas cheaply, it was necessary for Spain to adopt a policy of quiet deviousness. It played on the anti-American convictions of the region’s Native American population, and encouraged and harbored runaway slaves from nearby Georgia. After the Napoleonic Wars, Spain was indebted to Great Britain for its independence from France. This alliance and Spain’s antagonism towards American democracy combined to poison relations between the Spanish and the Americans rapidly. While Spain was technically neutral in the War of 1812, British ships used Florida ports to stage raids against the United States.

NEGRO FORT

One of the most important of these outposts was located on the Apalachicola River, near the port of St. Marks or San Marcos in what is now northwest Florida. The British built a military fort here, from which they supplied Muskogee raiders and encouraged slaves to desert their American masters. After the Treaty of Paris ended the War of 1812, the British evacuated the fort. In the spring of 1815, Colonel Edward Nicholls turned the fort along with its munitions and powder over to a group of 300 refugee slaves from Georgia, led by a man called Garc¸on or Garcia by various sources. Garcia was a member of the Seminole tribe, and the warriors under his command included several pure-blooded Indians. The Seminoles were a fusion of racial elements. Some were blacks who had escaped from slavery. Others were Creeks, refugees from the bitter civil war that had divided Muskogee a few years before. In alliance with nearby Choctaws, Garcia kept order in the surrounding area and began mounting raids into Georgia. Before long, news spread throughout the South of ‘‘Negro Fort.’’ Shortly, the fort’s population had swelled to nearly 1,000. The rise of a formidable African American military force represented the worst nightmare of the antebellum South. Memories were still fresh of the vicious racial warfare which attended the birth of Haiti. In addition, the fort’s raiders were close to shutting down river traffic into western Georgia from the Gulf of Mexico. In early 1816, Garcia’s forces seized a boat heading up the Apalachicola River and killed its crew. As anxieties rose, the American government (in the person of General Andrew Jackson) demanded that the Spanish authorities demolish the fort. Sidestepping the issue of whether such an action would be in Spain’s best interests, the Spanish simply didn’t have the manpower to take the fort and told the Americans as much. Jackson had anticipated this response, and had already ordered Major General Edmund P. Gaines to cross the border and destroy Negro Fort. Throughout June and July, Gaines and his army, accompanied by Muskogee warriors, fought a series of battles with the settlement’s forces. The Americans came off worse in ambush after ambush, as Garcia’s men fought valiantly and made excellent use of the terrain. However, the Americans had weight of numbers, and on July 27, 1816, they arrived within artillery range of the fort. Garcia first raised the British Union Jack, and then a red flag—declaring that no surrender would be given or accepted. A naval flotilla also joined the bombardment. Garcia’s forces tried to return fire from their own cannon, but the fort’s gunners had no training and could not strike back. However, the fort’s dirt walls simply absorbed all of the cannonballs during a 10-day siege. Garcia appeared on the fort’s parapet to mock the Americans, and Maroon snipers managed to pick off four soldiers during the bombardment. Frustrated, the captain of the naval force ordered his cannonballs heated before firing, hoping to set the fort aflame. A lucky American shot hit the fort’s powder room, setting off a huge explosion which killed nearly 300 people. The Americans stormed the fort, taking few captives. Garcia and his Choctaw allies were handed over to the Muskogee warriors, who tortured and killed them. About 40 survivors were put in chains and taken back to Georgia, and slavery. The operation had ended just in time—the day

115

116

NEVADA

after Negro Fort fell, a large body of Seminole warriors appeared. Seeing the fort destroyed, they withdrew to the south, taking with them some survivors of the assault. The story of the destruction of Negro Fort was suppressed—details of the battle were not made public until 1837, when abolitionist William Jay revealed them. Two years after the Negro Fort battle, Andrew Jackson illegally invaded Florida to subdue the Seminoles. He recognized the fort’s strategic location and ordered the foundation of Fort Gadsden on the remains of Negro Fort. Jackson’s campaign marked the end of Spanish Florida, as the presence of American troops and their own impotence brought the Spanish government to resign their attempts to hold Florida. The province was sold to the United States in 1819 for five million dollars, and a pledge to treat the Seminoles fairly. Ironically, Fort Gadsden was used as a supply base during the Seminole War 20 years later, when the U.S. spent 60 million dollars and 2,000 lives to remove the Seminoles to Oklahoma. After years of staunch resistance, the last Seminole diehards were moved west in 1858. Many of the Seminoles kept moving after being deposited in Oklahoma and took up residence in northern Mexico, free at last of American influence. Further Reading Aptheker, Herbert. American Negro Slave Revolts. New York: International Publishers, 1983. Aptheker, Herbert. ‘‘Maroons within the present limits of the United States,’’ 1948, in Price, Richard, editor. Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1996. Coulter, E. Merton. Georgia: A Short History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1960. Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T. Old Hickory’s War: Andrew Jackson and the Quest For Empire. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1996. Katz, William Loren. Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. New York: Atheneum Books for Young Readers, 1986. Porter, Kenneth W. The Black Seminoles: history of a freedom-seeking people. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1996. WGBH, Africans in America. ‘Florida’s Negro Fort.’ http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/aia/part3/3p1643.html. 1998.

Nevada—see Carson’s Valley. New Afrika, Republic of. Black Resistance to Slavery From the earliest days of black slavery, many of the enslaved fought for their freedom. The first slaves on American soil, brought to the short-lived Spanish settlement of San Miguel in present-day Georgia, won their freedom and joined a nearby Indian settlement in 1526. Many broke tools, slowed their work, burned buildings, and engaged in other forms of sabotage. Others fought: despite the brutal punishments the slaveowners meted out, many slaves did not hesitate to attack or even kill when the opportunity arose. A great many

NEW AFRIKA, REPUBLIC OF

slaves escaped to freedom. These escapees fled to the North, to Indian tribes that often welcomed and adopted them, and in some cases to impenetrable refuges such as the Great Dismal Swamp. On a few occasions, slaves were able to organize themselves in conspiracy and rebellion. The fear of a general slave uprising was a constant weight on white Southern minds. This anxiety became even deeper after the revolt which freed Haiti from French rule. The slaves of Haiti won their freedom and declared independence, but only after a vicious war rife with atrocities. In the aftermath of Haiti’s War of Independence, factionalism descended into a brutal civil war. The continual bloodshed in Haiti was a nightmare to Southern slaveowners but an inspiration to many slaves, who had little fear of dying in the cause of their own freedom. The nineteenth century in the South began with the conspiracy of Gabriel Prosser, a slave who organized thousands of fellow slaves to rise up and slaughter the white population of Richmond, Virginia. While the conspiracy fell apart and Prosser was executed, the racial lines in the South hardened still further. The invention of new techniques and tools such as the cotton gin made slavery increasingly profitable. The slavery debate covered layer after layer of complex emotion, from guilt to greed to fear and revulsion. The wonder is not that the divisions between the North and South led to the American Civil War, but that it was delayed as long as it was. The Civil War was the pivotal event of African American history. Not only did slavery collapse, but black soldiers were vital to the Union’s war effort. They fled the plantations, accelerating the collapse of the Southern economy. They provided invaluable intelligence. They performed admirably in the Union’s army, first as laborers and then as soldiers. The courage and resourcefulness of black soldiers won the respect, however grudging, of many white contemporaries. While they strove for the respect of others, black Americans were more concerned with fighting for their freedom. Their sacrifice and bravery was integral to the change in white opinion that led to their freedom and recognition as citizens. After the Civil War: The Beginnings of Black Nationalism Under the military governments of the Reconstruction period, African Americans in the South were able to make impressive gains. For the first time, Congress admitted black representatives and a handful of black senators. In many areas of the South, the only solid Republicans were the freed slaves, and thus blacks had a taste of self-government and real political power. Every gain was bitterly opposed by white Southerners. The Ku Klux Klan, an anti-black terrorist movement, sprung up throughout the South, soon claiming thousands of members. Republican leaders, black and white alike, were targeted for assassination. In rural areas, black voters were threatened with dire consequences if they dared to exercise their right to vote. Despite this intimidation, the Republicans held their grasp on power for nearly a decade. This brief renaissance came to an end when President Rutherford Hayes withdrew federal troops from the South in 1877. Republicans were defeated in election after election. In several areas, Democratic militias simply forced the Republicans from power— with the tacit approval of the federal government. The southern state

117

118

NEW AFRIKA, REPUBLIC OF

governments immediately enacted a sweeping series of laws that all but ended black suffrage, set up a stifling system of public and private segregation, and hampered the already struggling efforts to raise black Americans out of poverty. The status of black Americans outside the South was scarcely better. Segregation laws were widespread throughout much of the United States. Blacks were denigrated and dehumanized, and few white Americans troubled themselves over the plight of the African Americans. It was obvious to black Americans that they could turn only to each other for support. Many of the few black people who could afford it emigrated to the West, where black communities sprung up throughout the newly seized lands. William H. Thomas, a black leader in New York, was only one of many African Americans who urged the creation of a separate black territory or state. There were significant black populations in many western states, especially in Texas, where the black population tripled between 1860 and 1890 to over 600,000. These efforts, which were a source of great pride to many African Americans, were not successful in turning the ebbing tide of black political power. Blackowned homesteads were disproportionately on poorer land, and tended to lean more heavily on credit. A single drought or poor harvest was often enough to exhaust the resources of an entire black town. The attempt to build a black state or territory had its apogee in attempts to settle Oklahoma. Of the 100,000 settlers who rushed to claim land in Oklahoma when the territory was opened to non-Indian settlers, 10,000 were black. Some of the black settlers forged political ties with Oklahoma’s existing black population, many of whom were the descendents of black Seminoles, or of slaves held by the tribes, especially the Cherokee. Despite the best efforts of black colonists and Oklahoma’s indigenous black population, Oklahoma became a Democratic state and enacted a number of anti-black laws upon statehood. The brief experiment in black rural settlement was by and large ended by the twentieth century, and many rural blacks throughout the West migrated to larger towns in search of manufacturing work. The African-American population was discouraged and angered by the dismantlement of their political power and the realization that their freedom was still almost entirely in name only. A number of black leaders came to the conclusion that white Americans would never accept blacks as equals. The most influential of these separatists was Marcus Garvey. Garvey was born in Jamaica in 1887. In 1914, he founded what would become the United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). UNIA was dedicated to the empowerment of black people throughout the entire world. Garvey advocated the unification and independence of Africa. He called for black people to build a strong and independent economic base. Most importantly, Garvey called for social and political equality for all black people. The impact of his call was immediate and undeniable. Within a few years, UNIA had over half a million members in the United States. Unfortunately, Garvey’s economic endeavors faltered through poor management and bad luck. Elected ‘‘Provisional President of Africa’’ at UNIA’s 1920 convention in New York, he tried to forge ties with Liberia but was rejected due to pressure from large corporations and European governments. He was convicted for fraud in 1925, but his sentence was

NEW AFRIKA, REPUBLIC OF

commuted by President Coolidge. Although he lived until 1940, his influence was on the wane well before then. Socialism and Communism also made inroads among black Americans. In 1917, as Russia became the Soviet Union, those who hoped for justice seized on the Russian Revolution. That year, Cyril Briggs founded the African Blood Brotherhood, which called for armed black resistance to economic and social injustice. His movement never gathered more than a few thousand members, but it foreshadowed later radical movements. Garvey’s fiery rhetoric and the simple justice of his demands impelled a new generation of black leaders to demand more. The NAACP and other important civil rights organizations sprang out of the early twentieth century. More importantly, the growing concentration of African-Americans in the urban North provided the first glimmerings of real economic progress. Black participation in the two World Wars fuelled an intense sense of pride. Most importantly, the progressive administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the ideals of justice inculcated in many Americans by the shock of war against the totalitarian powers after 1941 started an inexorable pressure for political and social reform. The Civil Rights Movement The 1950s saw an upheaval in the legal status of black Americans. Courageous reformers, black and white, adopted the non-violent methods of Mahatma Gandhi and kept up a steady pressure for reform. Boycotts, sit-ins, demonstrations, and a systematic legal effort yielded a major victory in 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The ruling shattered the complacency of southern whites. As the civil rights movement gained strength, its opposition grew increasingly vicious. Many black activists were threatened or murdered. The cycle of violence reached its apogee in 1963, when a firebomb killed four young girls in a church. In 1965 Malcolm X was assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist group he had left. Civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. The loss of these statesmen was a major blow to the civil rights movement’s non-violent strategy. Riots broke out across the nation after King’s assassination in which dozens were killed. After the heady victories of the 1950s and early 1960s, progress was slowing. The war in Vietnam was increasingly bloody and utterly pointless to many Americans. It was even more unpopular among African-Americans, who were drafted in disproportionate numbers to fight. President Johnson declared ‘‘War on Poverty’’—but his actions did nothing to improve the lives of many poor African-Americans, who were tired of waiting for improvement in their condition. The final major victory of this phase of the civil rights movement was past—in 1965, the Voting Rights Act overturned legal maneuvers by many southern states to deny suffrage to African Americans. Given these conditions, it is no surprise that radical groups gained strength in the late 1960s. The example of the Nation of Islam, which had organized thousands of African-Americans with intense discipline, served as a major inspiration to these groups. In 1965, Stokely Carmichael organized the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO). Carmichael’s LCFO adopted the black

119

120

NEW AFRIKA, REPUBLIC OF

panther as a symbol. Composed entirely of blacks, the LCFO’s leadership soon took control of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), one of the largest components of the mainstream civil rights movement. In 1966, Carmichael became SNCC chair and adopted the slogan ‘‘Black Power.’’ Another important radical group was the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), founded in 1962 and disbanded following a series of FBI raids in 1969. In 1966, a group in Los Angeles called for the independence of Watts and surrounding areas with a primarily black population, to be called Freedom City. The most well-known radical group is the Black Panther Party. Founded in 1966, the Black Panthers never called for secession or revolution, but their advocacy of armed resistance and their iconic status made them idols to those who believed in the cause of black nationalism and attractive targets for reactionary fury. The Republic of New Afrika Of the black radical groups, the most avowedly nationalist was the Republic of New Afrika (RNA). The group, with ties to RAM and other established radical groups, was born out of the 1967 Newark race riots. New Afrika was the name of the independent black homeland the RNA hoped to establish. Its borders would encompass South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. In 1968, the group declared itself the provisional government of an independent black nation. In 1972, black poet and activist Imamu Baraka, who had helped to create the RNA, called for a national African-American political convention. 8,000 delegates attended, among them many RNA activists. The convention called for a national black party, but failed to follow through. By 1977, the convention’s membership had dwindled to 300. The RNA was faced with intense government harassment efforts. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program attempted to destroy a number of leftist and rightist extremist groups, ranging from the Black Panthers to the Ku Klux Klan. Faced with the constant threat of arrest, monitoring, and even death, the RNA lost energy and members. In 1971, a splinter faction of the Black Panthers allied with ex-RNA members to form the Black Liberation Army (BLA), which was involved in several terrorist acts. The last BLA action was the hijacking of a commercial airliner to Cuba in 1984. Today, a number of black nationalist groups still exist, including a muchreduced RNA. Their numbers are fewer, and their willingness to provoke armed conflict is even more reduced. While few today advocate the secession of African-Americans, the RNA helped to spark a national debate over reparations for slavery which continues to the present day. In addition, the RNA demand for a separate black nation has been adopted by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. In 1975, the Yoruba village of Oyotunji, an attempt to rebuild a traditional African society in South Carolina, debated secession but decided against it. Further Reading Bennett, Lerone, Jr. Black Power U.S.A.: The Human Side of Reconstruction 18671877. Chicago: Johnson Publishing, 1967.

NEW ENGLAND

Kelley, Robin D.G. and Lewis, Earl, editors. To Make Our World Anew, Volume 2: A History of African Americans Since 1880. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Mbulu, Mba. ‘‘The Republic of New Afrika.’’ 1999. http://www.asetbooks. com/Us/Nationhood/RNA/RepublicOfNewAfrika.html Taylor, Quintard. In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 1528-1990. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998.

New Connecticut—see Vermont. New England. New England is located in the northeastern United States. Traditionally, it consists of the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Much of the state of New York also identifies with the region. The region’s history has long been influenced by its terrain. The central geographic feature of New England is the northern end of the Appalachian mountain range. The region’s soil is generally poor, thin, and rocky, due to the movement of glaciers during the Ice Ages. The glaciers also carved a number of lakes and valleys out of the land and left the coastline dotted with islands and inlets. While its coastline measures less than 800 miles from north to south, the shoreline covers nearly 8,000 miles. Those of a deterministic bent could argue (as many have) that the rugged terrain and short growing season have helped to shape the character of New England’s inhabitants. Pre-Colonial History New England has been occupied for thousands of years. In the time just before the beginning of the French and English colonization efforts, the Native American inhabitants spoke a number of different languages. These languages were mostly part of the Algonkian family in the east and Iroquois in the west. The Native Americans practiced agriculture, and lived for the most part in organized agricultural villages. The forests provided abundant game. As populations rose, so too did conflict. The Iroquois Confederacy, which arose as tribes allied for protection, was a sophisticated and mature nation by the time the English first arrived in the seventeenth century. The Abnaki were another powerful tribe, ranging from Vermont and New Hampshire to southern Maine. Along the East Coast, the political situation was much more fluid and complex, as a number of related tribes governed smaller areas. The strength and resiliency of New England’s Indian nations allowed them to recover from the first devastating impact of colonialism. For centuries, the Native Americans of New England retained enough power to force the colonial nations of France and England to the negotiating table. They were powerful allies and formidable opponents. New England to 1689 The region was first explored for Britain by Captain John Smith, who surveyed the coast in 1614. Six years later, the first settlers arrived. The Puritans who settled Plymouth were non-conformists, devout Protestants whose brand of Christianity was out of step with British practice. Plymouth never received a

121

122

NEW ENGLAND

royal charter, and governed itself with a minimum of interference. It was soon absorbed by the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony, which governed over 20,000 settlers by the mid-1640s and extended its influence into Maine and New Hampshire. The growing pressure provoked the Pequot tribe to attack the Massachusetts colony in 1637. Over the course of the next year, the colonists virtually annihilated the tribe. The lesson of the war struck heavily in Indian communities- there would be no more war in New England for a generation. The fall of the Stuart monarchy in 1642 and the beginning of the English Civil War threatened the young colonies. With English authorities preoccupied, the New England colonies made sure of their safety by allying. In May of 1643, the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven banded together in the New England Confederation. The Confederation, formed to coordinate military action against Indians and the French, was never more than a weak alliance. Massachusetts dominated the Confederation and often ignored its decisions when votes went against its interest. Before its dissolution, the Confederation fought a brutal battle for survival when the Wampanoag leader Metacom, often called King Philip, declared war on the colonists in 1675. The war was devastating for Plymouth, which spent itself into bankruptcy. It was, however, the end of the Wampanoags, who lost thousands of their number over the course of the war. This war was followed by a sharp conflict against the Abnaki. The wars led to the collapse of Indian society throughout much of New England, as the survivors were forced to adapt themselves to European society. Many ended their lives as servants of the victorious colonists. In the wake of the war, the restored Stuart monarchy turned its attention to New England, and King Charles II was irritated by the state of the colonies. New England offered little more than nominal allegiance. In addition, New England’s ports cheerfully ignored the Navigation Acts, which barred trade between the colonies and other nations besides England. In 1684, Charles II revoked the charter of Massachusetts and appointed a new governor. In 1686, Sir Edmund Andros was made governor of the new Dominion of New England. The Confederation was dissolved. Andros arrived that December with the first British troops to be stationed in the American colonies. At first, Connecticut refused to acknowledge his authority and Andros had to march his troops to Hartford to secure their cooperation. In April of 1688 the Dominion was expanded to include New York and New Jersey. Andros antagonized the colonists in a number of ways. He cracked down on the press, attempted to centralize taxation, and stripped local authorities of much of their power. When the Glorious Revolution toppled James II in 1689, the news electrified New England. Despite Andros’s best efforts to suppress the news, Boston rose up against him. Andros fled from an armed mob, and the colonies revived their old charters. The new English government of King William and Queen Mary accepted the coup and recognized the restored governments as legitimate.

NEW ENGLAND

From 1689 to 1789 After the toppling of Andros, New England’s governments resumed their internal squabbles. Despite periodic conflict over borders, land grants, and commerce, the New England colonies shared a common interest in defense against French Canada and the Indian nations on their borders. The population of the American colonies had grown vastly, from 50,000 in 1650 to nearly 300,000 in 1700. In the early years of the eighteenth century, England was embroiled in the exhausting War of the Spanish Succession. For much of this period, New England ignored calls from England for volunteers and instead demanded protection against the Abnakis and their French Acadian allies. When the Treaty of Utrecht ended the war in 1713, the Acadians were deported. The taking of Acadia, which comprised most of the Canadian Maritime Provinces, ended decades of border fighting and created a boom in New England. As immigration increased and the economy expanded, New England’s ports began to lose power to the new inland settlements. The tensions between the settlers and the established port cities helped to aggravate the constant struggle between the individual and government in the American colonies. Immigration and prosperity also helped to loosen the hold of Calvinist Puritanism over New England. As the English colonies pressed further to the west, they came into increasing conflict with the Native American nations and the French. By the mid-1750s, pressure was growing to improve the defenses and the military coordination of the American colonies. Attempts to build a union failed, although the idea had powerful supporters in England as well as America. Despite the triumph of provincialism, the Americans contributed men and money to the military effort when war broke out with France in 1755, which ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The war brought huge changes to America—France lost its entire North American empire to Britain. The conquest of Canada changed the balance of power between England and the colonies. The war’s cost and difficulty led the royal government to impose a number of new economic and taxation measures, which aggravated the growing tension between the established colonial aristocracies of the port cities and the new settler communities. This tension between the seaboard and the inland settlements was encouraged by the British government’s new Indian policy. The need to maintain the goodwill of the Indian nations was now the paramount foreign policy concern of Britain. While the settlers wanted an aggressive policy and the opening of new land to settlement, Britain wanted to keep down military costs and maintain the lucrative flow of furs from Indian lands. As a result, the Appalachians were set as the western limit of settlement in 1763. The British government had angered the colonists, but for many the worst provocations had yet to arrive. The British cracked down on the press, issuing a tax on all printed materials. They enacted a tough series of mercantilist laws, shutting down the quasi-legal and extremely lucrative foreign trade of the New England ports. Throughout the colonies, radical leaders began calling for independence. By 1774, the radicals had gained enough power to organize

123

124

NEW ENGLAND

themselves in a Congress. Congress began organizing itself as a shadow government, seizing munitions and supplies, and calling up a militia. The colonies were in rebellion in all but name. When British troops attempted to seize a munitions depot at Concord, Massachusetts, in April of 1775, American militiamen fired on them at Lexington and Concord, and the American Revolution began. From the Revolution to the War of 1812 New England moved quickly to support the actions at Lexington and Concord. Militiamen poured into Boston, and seized strategic forts controlling the land routes to Canada. The New England forces, under the general command of Massachusetts’ Artemas Ward, fought the British to a standstill outside Boston on June 16, 1775, at the Battle of Bunker’s Hill (so named although the battle was actually fought on nearby Breed’s Hill). Nearly simultaneously at Philadelphia, the Continental Congress voted to organize a united army under the command of Virginia’s George Washington. New England troops, including the forces of independent Vermont, participated in a failed attempt to conquer Canada. In the spring of 1776, General Washington forced the British to evacuate Boston. On July 4, 1776, the American colonies formally declared their independence. The British were faced with insuperable difficulties of manpower and logistics. They took to holding strategic ports while depending on Loyalist Americans (approximately a third of the colonial population, which opposed the Revolution) to hold the hinterland. The Americans, meanwhile, were unwilling to risk open battle with the British Army’s firepower. Many of the war’s key campaigns were fought on New England soil. In late 1777, an entire British army was captured at Saratoga in northern New York. This victory brought France, and later Spain and the Netherlands into the war against Britain. The British shifted their efforts to the southern colonies, hoping to stay closer to Britain’s threatened Caribbean colonies and to exploit the larger Loyalist population in the South. In 1781, a coordinated attack by Washington’s army and a French fleet forced the surrender of the British forces under General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, in Virginia. While fighting continued throughout the south and on the western frontier, Yorktown was the last major battle of the Revolution. In 1782, the British House of Commons voted to end the war. The Treaty of Paris, which recognized the independence of the United States, was signed in 1783. After the war, New England leaders were prominent in the Congress during the period of the Confederation, and in the convention that drafted the Constitution of 1789. The undercurrent of radicalism that spurred New England leaders to push for revolution remained alive. In western Massachusetts, farmers under the leadership of Daniel Shays rebelled in 1786 against the state government’s tax policies and laws that favored the upper class. This radicalism also manifested itself in distrust of strong central government— when Jefferson announced the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the legislature of Massachusetts threatened to secede rather than allow the precedent of such sweeping government action.

NEW ENGLAND

The early years of American independence saw an explosion in American trade and the wealth of the port cities of New England. This prosperity was threatened, however, by the need to deal delicately with the European powers. The Jay Treaty of 1794, which normalized relations with England and allowed American exports to triple by 1800, was bitterly resented by the French, who launched an undeclared naval war against the United States. By 1812, the situation was reversed. The Democratic Republicans dismantled the military, and much of the Federalist detente with Britain. As the Napoleonic Wars continued to rage, American shipping profited from the conflict. In 1805, the British government began seizing American ships carrying war materiel to Europe. The Royal Navy was loose in its definition of contraband, seizing American goods with no conceivable military use. Confident that the United States could not mount a military response, it also habitually violated U.S. territorial waters, and seized (or ‘‘impressed’’) sailors of British birth to serve on its warships. These actions infuriated Americans and had an alarming effect on the U.S. economy. A treaty was negotiated in 1806, but Jefferson chose not to submit it for ratification, as it waived the right to an embargo and said nothing about the impressment of sailors. U.S.-British relations became increasingly frosty. They were further worsened when both Britain and France announced blockades of each others’ ports. To demonstrate U.S. power, President Jefferson declared an embargo against Britain. The embargo was a disaster, which reduced exports by 80 percent and threatened New England’s economies with collapse. Soon, the anger was too great to ignore. Throughout New England, state governments ignored the embargo and denounced it. Several states formally nullified the embargo, threatening secession. Under such pressure, the federal government relented and replaced the embargo with the Non-Intercourse Act, which prevented direct trade with either of the warring alliances. In 1811, the federal policy was further modified, and while relations were on the mend with France, imports from the British Empire were banned. The English had contemptuously ignored the embargo, and now threatened to retaliate against the non-importation act. Relations were further worsened by the outbreak of fighting against Tecumseh’s Shawnee confederacy on the western frontier and an incident between U.S. and British naval forces that killed several men. The political options were exhausted, and in November of 1811, President James Madison asked Congress to prepare for war. Both houses of Congress contained a heavy majority of Democratic Republicans, who controlled the South and the West. The Federalists had little power outside their base in New England. Led by a young group of pro-war representatives, Congress enacted a series of bills that stepped up military preparations. In early 1812, Congress approved a short-term embargo to heighten the pressure on England. New England’s ships poured out to sea before the embargo took effect, making a mockery of the action and increasing tensions between New England and the federal government.

125

126

NEW ENGLAND

The War of 1812 and the Hartford Convention After a mission from England returned with news that England refused all concessions, Madison asked Congress for a declaration of war. Voting strictly along party lines, Congress voted for war on June 17. The following day, Madison signed the bill and declared war on England. The news was a shock, especially in New England. In many parts of the nation, rioters attacked and even killed Federalists who opposed the war, and feelings hardened on both sides of the issue. The failure of American armies to win victories in the Northwest Territory and Canada contributed to the general gloom, although American victories at sea buoyed the nation’s spirits. The Federalist Party, which had staunchly opposed the war, capitalized on public discontent and won significant victories throughout the region in the 1812 election. Madison won re-election, although the contest was much narrower than in 1808. Little progress was made in 1813. While American armies won victories against the Muskogee and the Shawnee, and won several important victories in the Great Lakes, the naval war turned against the United States. Most importantly, Napoleon’s army was shattered in Russia and it was becoming apparent that the British would have a free hand during the campaign season of 1814. New England merchants continued to trade with the British—most of the British army in Spain was fed on American wheat. The government was falling deeply into debt. An attempt at an embargo on trade with Britain proved so unpopular that President Madison had to ask Congress to repeal it three months after asking for it. The campaign of 1814 was the most ferocious of the war. While a few victories were won on the northwestern frontier, the campaign there remained a stalemate. British troops occupied eastern Maine, and many inhabitants welcomed them and swore allegiance to Britain. Most importantly, the British brushed aside American resistance and burned Washington, D.C., in late August. All these setbacks were forgotten, however, when General Andrew Jackson destroyed a British army in the Battle of New Orleans in December, losing only 70 casaulties while causing over 2,000 British losses. The fall of 1814 saw moves towards outright revolt in Federalist New England. The nation’s debt burden became crushing when the government defaulted on its obligations. The Senate passed a conscription law, but when New England threatened to nullify it, the bill was not sent on to the House of Representatives. As the naval war continued to go badly, New England’s economy was in serious trouble. Nantucket Island was forced to declare neutrality in order to receive food. In 1812, Connecticut raised its own army to protect its shores, and Rhode Island and Massachusetts followed suit in 1814. From the war’s beginning, the New England states were reluctant at best to order their militia troops into battle under commanders from the federal army. These conflicts had led to periodic calls for a New England convention since the embargo of 1808. Moderates had managed to defuse the issue until 1814. In September, the government of Massachusetts voted to hold a convention and invite the other New England states to discuss their shared grievances. Connecticut and Rhode Island sent delegates, and observers also came from

NEWINGTON

Vermont and New Hampshire. In December, the delegates met at Hartford, Connecticut. The Hartford Convention, while called by the radical element of the Federalist Party, was largely attended by moderates, who were anxious to prevent the Convention from doing anything rash. In addition, the sense of crisis that led to the Convention had ebbed with the passing of the campaign season and conciliatory gestures from Britain. What might have been the first move in a campaign for secession therefore ended with a predictable list of New England’s grievances, ranging from Southern over-representation in Congress to new restrictions on trade embargoes. The Treaty of Ghent ended the war in February of 1815, and the rumblings of discontent from New England—but the assertive stance of New England’s governments and their declared intention to ignore certain federal laws would be resurrected by South Carolina in 1830, and by the South as a whole in 1860. New England Secessionism Since 1814 The end of the War of 1812 did not end talk of secession in New England. Threats and petitions were flung again at several times, especially as the growing population of newer states eroded New England’s political power. Some New England politicians threatened secession over the annexation of Texas. Abolitionists called for secession several times before the Civil War, rather than continued acceptance of slavery. Brief and desultory attempts to organize secession movements have taken place since then, including activists from every corner of the political spectrum. In recent years, rightist advocates of limited government called for secession during the 1990s, while leftist advocates of individual liberties have called for secession since the government’s reaction to the terrorist action of September 11, 2001. While the reasons have varied, the distinctness of New England’s identity and pride have remained intact. Further Reading Adams, James Truslow. New England in the Republic, 1776-1850. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1926. Adams, James Truslow. Revolutionary New England, 1691-1776. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1923. Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989. Johnson, Michael. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1999. Ward, Harry M. The United Colonies of New England- 1643-90. New York: Vantage Press, 1961.

New York City—see Tri-Insula, Free City of. Newington. The state of New Hampshire is known for several things. One of them is a healthy distrust of government in all its manifestations, especially taxation.

127

128

NEWINGTON

Several towns in New Hampshire were especially angered by New Hampshire’s statewide property tax. In 1997, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that the funding of state education by local property taxes was unconstitutional. In response, New Hampshire’s legislature passed a statewide property tax in 1999. The tax immediately ignited a fierce public debate, especially in towns that contributed more than they received. A number of towns launched a suit against the state government, arguing that the tax was unfair and unconstitutional. In January of 2001, Superior Court Judge Richard Galway ruled in their favor and ordered the state to refund nearly $900 million in collected taxes. The state response was immediate. The Speaker of the House and the Senate President of the New Hampshire legislature denied that the Attorney General had the authority to promise payment. For his part, Attorney General Philip McLaughlin appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In May, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, overturning the earlier Superior Court decision. With little recourse left, the angry residents of the town of Newington circulated a petition. It was delivered with 52 signatures to the town’s Board of Selectmen in July. It asked the town of Newington to invoke Article X of the New Hampshire Constitution. This was an act freighted with emotion. Article X, adopted in 1784, specifically endorses revolution and ends with the powerful sentence: The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Support for the petition grew, and many residents began calling the town ‘‘the State of Newington.’’ On July 31, the Selectmen held a special town meeting to discuss the petition. 300 people came, out of a population of 900. Many speakers favored the petition. Others questioned the wisdom of the act, but on economic grounds—the Selectmen had budgeted several thousand dollars to research the possibility of secession. The town meeting drew an immense amount of media coverage. Soon, the nearby town of Rye scheduled a meeting to discuss secession as well. Citizens of the town of New Castle also circulated a petition. The discussions and the real possibility of a legal showdown over secession were forestalled by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In shock, Newington postponed a scheduled vote on secession. The secession movement lost steam quickly, and soon cooler heads proposed a number of alternatives, from appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court to strongly worded resolutions. While many New Hampshire citizens were far from reconciled with the state government, the threat of secession was ended. Further Reading DeConto, Jesse J. ‘‘Police chief jokingly nominated for governor of Newington.’’ Portsmouth Herald, July 21, 2001. DeConto, Jesse J. ‘‘Residents talk secession in Rye.’’ Portsmouth Herald, August 7, 2001.

NORTH DAKOTA

‘‘Evelyn Sirrell, et al. v. State of New Hampshire, et al.’’ The State of New Hampshire Rockingham, SS. Superior Court. 99-E-0692. 2001. Mulkern, Larissa. ‘‘Secession still tool for towns in tax debate.’’ The Hampton Union, September 30, 2001. Town of Newington, New Hampshire. Board of Selectmen Meeting minutes, July 31, 2001.

Nickajack—see Winston County. North Dakota. North Dakota was settled relatively late in the frontier rush. The region was firmly controlled by the Dakota nation, one of the strongest of the Plains Indian tribes. The adoption of horses had allowed the Dakota to expand west from their home in Minnesota, and epidemics which swept the Great Plains had a larger impact on the dense agricultural villages of tribes such as the Mandan than on the nomadic Dakota. Starting around 1700, the Dakota swept across the modern states of the Dakotas, and their influence was felt as far as the Rocky Mountains. American immigrants first arrived in Dakota in 1858, but the 1860s saw the first large-scale arrival of white settlers. The Oregon Trail passed through the southern reaches of Dakota territory, and the discovery of gold in Montana in 1862 brought large numbers of prospectors further north. While conflicts between the Dakota and Americans threatened a large-scale war throughout the 1850s and a rebellion in 1862 cost the Dakota their homeland in Minnesota, they were able to maintain themselves on the Plains. The discovery of gold in the Black Hills in 1866 triggered a devastating conflict. A series of brutal wars shattered the military power of the Dakotas and reduced their lands to a small string of poor reservations. A drought and intensive hunting caused a major decline in the bison population, and the Dakota were forced into dependence on the American government for food. The Dakota Territory was thrown open to American settlement. Early settlers to the Dakota Territory clustered in the richer agricultural lands of the territory’s southeastern corner, or near the mineral riches of the Black Hills in the southwest. The sparse settlement of the north meant that by the time anyone thought to organize the region’s leaders, political power had been firmly entrenched in the south. The territory’s legislature was dominated by a few men, and its utterly secure grip on power encouraged a culture of corruption and graft. A small group of leaders in the north were infuriated by the legislature’s appalling performance. In 1882, they formed the Dakotas Citizens League (DCL), which maneuvered to take control of Dakota Territory’s politics. Led by railroad lobbyist Alexander McKenzie, the DCL was a conservative machine. Within a year, McKenzie had gathered enough power in the territorial legislature to move the capital from Yankton, at the southeastern corner of the territory, to Bismarck, in the center of modern North Dakota. McKenzie’s machine consolidated its grasp over North Dakota politics. Within a few years, he had engineered the split between North and South Dakota. In 1890, both states were admitted to the Union. North Dakota’s population boomed in the 1880s, from 37,000 to over 150,000.

129

130

NORTH DAKOTA

Statehood, new railroad lines, and economic growth spurred a new boom. Between 1905 and 1920, North Dakota’s population more than tripled to nearly 650,000. The population was a mixture of ethnic strands, although the largest population groups were Norwegian, German, and English. The frontier feel of North Dakota politics and the rootlessness of its people (in 1915, four out of five North Dakotans were either immigrants or the children of immigrants) contributed to the state’s chaotic politics. In 1906, Alexander McKenzie’s machine was toppled by a progressive coalition. By 1910, progressives had taken many of the state’s elective offices. The first Nonpartisan League (NPL) was formed in 1915, an alliance of progressive reformers and radical agitators. Fuelled by resentment of corporate ownership of North Dakota’s wealth and poor state services, the NPL took only a year to seize control of the state Republican Party and most of the state’s elective offices. In the 1918 elections, the NPL took control of the Senate, and Governor Lynn Frazier introduced a slew of progressive reforms, including expansion of human services and tighter regulation of business. The state organized a central bank. The North Dakota Industrial Commission and Mill and Elevator Association basically collectivized industry and agriculture. The NPL was a victim of its own success; corporate interests bankrolled the formation of a new Independent Voter’s Association (IVA), which split the NPL’s base of disaffected voters. A slew of lawsuits challenged the NPL’s reforms. The worst hit, though, was the post-war slump in food prices, which crippled North Dakota’s economy and eroded the NPL’s popularity among voters. The IVA took control of the State Senate in 1920 and engineered a recall election the next year, which saw the end of Governor Frazier’s administration and the dismantling of many NPL reforms. The Governorship of William Langer The NPL and its supporters laid low throughout the 1920s, but it was soon to be handed an incredible opportunity: the Great Depression. As banks and businesses collapsed, the crisis was deepened by the drought of the early 1930s and then by a plague of grasshoppers. Even as the state’s harvest crashed, wheat prices plummeted. The people of North Dakota again looked for radical solutions. They soon found a rallying point, when William ‘‘Wild Bill’’ Langer, who had served as Attorney General during the NPL years, revived the NPL in 1932 and carried the election later that year. Upon taking office, Langer pushed through a number of reforms; he cut the state budget, stopped grain shipments, and halted farm foreclosures by executive order. His reforms made enemies, who were quick to search for a reason to attack the Governor. They found one. In 1934, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes informed Gerald Nye, a political ally of Langer, that the Governor was under investigation for campaign law violations. It was alleged that Langer had pressured people receiving federal relief funds to donate money to the NPL’s newspaper. Langer was a constant thorn in the side of federal authorities and the Democratic Party in North Dakota, and Secretary Ickes was happy to pass the information on. Nye broke the news, igniting a firestorm throughout North Dakota. The trial followed

NORTH DUMPLING

swiftly, and in June of 1934 William Langer was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the federal government. Langer refused to accept the verdict or to resign from office. Ole Olsen, the lieutenant governor, asked the state’s Supreme Court to order Langer to resign. On July 17, 1934, the Supreme Court of North Dakota declared Olsen the legitimate governor. Langer’s reaction was not what the Supreme Court expected— before the Court’s order was filed on the 18th, Langer met with 10 of his friends and declared North Dakota’s independence. He then barricaded the governor’s mansion and declared martial law. Not until the Supreme Court justices met personally with Langer did he relent, revoking his declaration and bringing North Dakota back into the Union. Langer was cleared of all charges on appeal. In his absence, the political situation in Bismarck had turned into a free-for-all. After Langer’s removal, his lieutenant governor was sworn in but lost the 1934 election to the Democratic candidate, who in turn was removed from office when it was discovered that he did not meet the state’s residency requirements. Langer swept back into the Governor’s mansion in 1936. From all accounts, he served out his second term in a much quieter fashion. In 1940, Langer entered the Senate and served there until his death in 1959. Further Reading Davis, James A. State Historical Society of North Dakota. Personal communication, April 30, 2002. Dwyer, Jim, chief editor. Strange Stories, Amazing Facts of America’s Past. Pleasantville, NY: Reader’s Digest General Books, 1989. Lamar, Howard Robert. Dakota Territory: A Study of Frontier Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956. Powell v. McCormack. U.S. Supreme Court, 395 U.S. 486 (1989). Remele, Larry. North Dakota History: Overview and Summary. Bismarck, ND: State Historical Society of North Dakota, 1988. Robinson, Elwyn B. History of North Dakota. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1966. Scallon, Sean. ‘‘North Dakota’s Non-Partisan League.’’ Chronicles, February 2002.

Norte, Republica del—see Aztlan. North Dumpling. North Dumpling is a scenic three-acre island (complete with New England-style lighthouse) off the coast of Long Island. It was purchased in 1986 by inventor Dean Kamen (the man behind the Segway powered scooter), after he spotted it while taking flight classes. Kamen announced plans in 1992 to build a wind-powered turbine on the island. The state of New York objected, insisting that Kamen needed a permit. Kamen refused to get a permit, noting that state law required New York to provide him with school bus service and trash collection. He then declared North Dumpling independent. By the end of 1992, he had established a currency with the value of pi, signed a non-aggression pact with President George Bush, and

131

132

NORTHWEST ANGLE

named his friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream) the nation’s Joint Chiefs of Ice Cream. New York quietly withdrew its complaint, and Kamen built the windmill. Kamen’s position as an inventor of medical devices and major player in the politics of New Hampshire has probably saved him from the fate of numerous other secessionists. Further Reading Associated Press. ‘‘‘Ginger’ inventor writes his own rules.’’ February 6, 2002. Kirsner, Scott. ‘‘Breakout Artist.’’ Wired, September 2000.

Northwest Angle. Minnesota’s Northwest Angle is a political curiosity, a small enclave located on the Lake of the Woods but physically separated from the rest of Minnesota by the Canadian province of Manitoba. The rural area has a population of just over 100. For years, the engine of the local economy has been sport fishing. From lodges to boat rental businesses, access to fishing is a vital part of the Northwest Angle’s life. In 1998, the area suffered a major blow. The province of Ontario issued a new law forbidding American anglers at the Northwest Angle from keeping any fish caught in the Canadian portion of the lake. This compounded existing tensions over complicated border-crossing rules in the area. The business owners of the Northwest Angle faced a major dilemma. They decided to take drastic action. They voted to approach their congressman and ask him to introduce a bill allowing the Northwest Angle to secede and join Canada. Representative Collin Peterson agreed. After exhausting every other possibility with the U.S. and Canadian governments as well as with Ontario and Minnesota, Representative Peterson introduced a bill enabling the Northwest Angle to secede in March of 1998. The secession bill garnered attention, and finally action. On March 23, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the U.S. and Canadian governments to resolve the impasse. Minnesota’s Governor Jesse Ventura seized on the issue, and the continuing public interest forced all parties to the negotiating table. In November of 1999, Minnesota agreed to reduce catch limits and increase enforcement on the Lake of the Woods, and Ontario agreed to remove its restrictions on fishing by non-Canadians. With the resolution of the issue, the Northwest Angle happily gave up its bid for secession. Further Reading Minnesota House of Representatives. ‘‘Fishing dispute resolution.’’ Session Weekly 15, no. 10 (March 27, 1998). Radil, Amy. ‘‘The Northwest Angle.’’ Minnesota Public Radio, August 17, 1998. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199808/17_radila_ angle-m/. Southwick, James. ‘‘State and Provincial Regulations With CrossBorder Impact.’’ Proceedings of the Canada-United States Law Institute Conference 27 (2001).

O Oglala Sioux Nation—see Dakota. Ontario. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the Iroquois Confederacy was exhausted. The Iroquois had attempted to maintain neutrality between the Americans and British, hoping to play both sides against each other as they had once balanced the British and French. Despite the best efforts of the Iroquois chiefs, the Six Nations of the Confederacy were drawn into the war. Some allied tribes declared for the Americans and others for the British. The tribes split into factions. The peace was no less contentious than the war. In 1784, American negotiators arrived to make peace with the Iroquois. The Americans negotiated literally at gunpoint. Several Indian negotiators were taken as hostages to intimidate the others. Alcohol and other bribes were provided to manipulate the chiefs. Many Iroquois left in disgust before the proceedings ended in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, which purportedly repudiated all Iroquois claims outside the state of New York. It was denounced by the Iroquois two years later. After the Revolution ended, the Iroquois’s fragile polity suffered intense pressure. The state governments were desperate for money, and the sale of Indian lands was an easy way to bring in revenue. Just as the states were eager to sell their lands, thousands of settlers were eager to buy it. When they could not, they were just as happy to move on to Indian land and establish themselves without bothering with the niceties of ownership. Purchasing the Iroquois lands, however, posed difficulties for would-be investors. Massachusetts retained claims from the colonial era to lands in New York west of the 77th parallel. In 1786, the two states came to an agreement. Massachusetts retained the sole right to acquire title to Native American land west of the 77th parallel, which became known as the ‘‘Pre-Emption Line,’’ although New York would retain political sovereignty over the area. New York also agreed to amend its state constitution to expressly forbid any individual or corporation from purchasing Native American land. By 1787, nearly all of the Iroquois lands east of the Pre-Emption Line had been sold. West of the Line, the Seneca nation was able to hold out. The Iroquois still maintained enough military power to make a naked land grab unprofitable, to say the least. Speculators therefore had to maintain the appearance of propriety, despite the thorny legal problems involved in skirting the laws of both New York and Massachusetts.

134

ONTARIO

Several speculators came up with a solution. They asked the Seneca nation for a 999-year lease on eight million acres of land, which they then planned to sublease to settlers. The leader of the New York Genesee Land Company, which negotiated the lease, was John Livingston, a member of one of the state’s richest and most politically powerful dynasties. Livingston also organized a Canadian branch company to exert influence on those Iroquois living on the British side of the border. A brief boom in these leases began, but ended quickly when New York’s Governor George Clinton denounced Livingston as a fraud. This stung Livingston to the quick on a personal as well as financial level—Livingston had served Clinton as an aide-de-camp during the American Revolution and allied with Clinton politically against his own cousin during New York’s first gubernatorial campaign. Desperate to recoup some of their expenses, Livingston and his company offered to act as a broker to negotiate a lease on behalf of the state of New York—and to take a mere four million acres as a broker’s fee. Again, the state government refused Livingston’s offer. Governor Clinton personally led a group north to pressure the Iroquois into surrendering claims to the state instead of to Livingston. He found Livingston at Fort Schuyler, advising the Iroquois not to sell. Clinton ordered Livingston to leave and travel 40 miles from the negotiations. Despite his losses in the courtroom and the legislature, Livingston exerted a powerful influence over the Iroquois, who were convinced of his goodwill. In 1788, a Massachusetts businessman named Oliver Phelps bought the state’s right to lands and purchased nearly three million acres west of the PreEmption Line. Livingston and his colleagues were instrumental in helping Phelps to secure the deal, but Phelps was a shrewd man. He was able to drive a wedge between the New York and Canadian branches of Livingston’s company. Despite his acumen, the market was soft. After two years, Phelps was unable to meet his payments to Massachusetts and returned most of the land unsold. With the land’s ownership now uncertain again, Livingston made a bold move to regain his influence in the area. He began circulating petitions in several western counties to urge the secession of the western half of New York. He focused his attention on Ontario County, which at the time comprised all of New York west of the Pre-Emption Line. The petitions caused an uproar. On November 8, 1793, the citizens of Ontario County produced a set of resolutions roundly denouncing Livingston and reaffirming their loyalty to New York. In 1797, the Seneca nation lost its lands to a more determined buyer, the Massachusetts businessman Robert Morris. Morris bribed a number of influential chiefs and browbeat others into agreement. He then sold the vast lands to a Dutch bank to satisfy a crushing debt. Settlers poured onto the Iroquois lands, which had lost half of their population since 1776 to warfare, disease, and famine. The Iroquois were forced onto small islands of reservation land, which continued to shrink for another century. John Livingston never lost his ambition. He later asked President Washington for an appointment as a federal Indian commissioner, pointing to his

OREGON

experience in New York and his ability to win the Iroquois’s trust. He was not rewarded with the position. Further Reading McAndrew, Mike. ‘‘A land deal is struck: Ignoring Constitution, NY pressures Onondagas to sell territory.’’ Syracuse Post-Standard, August 9, 2000. Municipality of Buffalo, New York: A History, 1720-1923. Edited by Henry Wayland Hill. New York: Lewis Historical Pub. Co., 1923. Robortella, John M. ‘‘The Field Notes of Col. Hugh Maxwell’s Pre-emption Line Survey in the Phelps and Gorham Purchase.’’ Crooked Lake Review, Spring 2004. Wallace, Anthony F.C. The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca. New York: Vintage Books, 1969.

Oregon. The Oregon Country to 1840 The Oregon Country, as the Pacific Northwest was called in the early nineteenth century, made up the modern states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. It also contained most of the Canadian province of British Columbia and parts of Wyoming and Montana. This vast prize was disputed between Britain and America as well as other colonial nations for decades. While the imperial powers debated over who would rule the Oregon Territory, its settlers developed their own ideas. The Oregon Territory is bounded on its west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Rocky Mountains. The Columbia and Snake Rivers flow west from the Rockies through the Cascade Mountains, which follow the coastline. These mountains block moisture from traveling east, which makes the coastline exceptionally rainy while parts of the interior plateau between the two mountain ranges are extremely arid. When the Lewis and Clark Expedition traveled through the region and arrived at the Pacific Ocean in late 1805, the strongest claims to the Oregon Country belonged to Britain and the United States. Other colonial powers, such as Spain and Russia, were unable to compete and would eventually negotiate away their claims as bargaining chips. With the exception of a few desultory landings, the Lewis and Clark expedition marked the beginning of contact with the Native American nations of the region. The exceptionally fertile coastal region was densely populated by a number of tribes who were able to develop a rich material culture and complex societies with resorting to agriculture. These tribes, such as the Kwakiutl, Nootka, and Haida, were victims of their own success; their densely populated villages were decimated by European epidemics. The interior plateau was occupied by a number of small tribes, many of whom had adopted a horse-centered culture as thoroughly as the tribes of the Great Plains. These tribes, such as the Flatheads and Nez Perce, were able to exploit their mobility and the difficult terrain of their mountainous territory to maintain their independence well into the nineteenth century.

135

136

OREGON

As the Lewis and Clark expedition’s papers were published, Americans were thrilled by the possibilities of their new empire. One enterprising businessman, John Jacob Astor, briefly established an American foothold at the mouth of the Columbia River in 1811. His post was seized by the British during the War of 1812. After Astor’s return to the East, he was consoled by Thomas Jefferson, who predicted that the West Coast would become a sister republic to the United States, ‘‘unconnected with us, except by the ties of blood and interest.’’ At the time, the difficulties of governing the Pacific region across the little-known and largely hostile territory of the Plains Indians and the Rocky Mountains seemed insurmountable. In the wake of Astor’s failure, the British Northwest Company extended its trade network to include the Oregon Country. A few trading posts dotted the area, but a small group of fur trappers were the only European presence. In 1821, a period of near-warfare between agents of the Northwest Company (NWC) and the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) ended with the HBC absorbing its traditional Northwest Company rivals. By the 1830s, Americans were starting to penetrate the Oregon Country. In 1838, a party of missionaries became the first Americans to settle permanently in the region along the Columbia River. They immediately petitioned Congress to organize the region as a territory, but Congress took no action. An American claim on Oregon, they reasoned, might provoke a war with Britain. As more settlers arrived and relations with the Native Americans worsened, another petition was sent in 1840 with no more effect than the first. The federal government was unwilling to risk war for a handful of settlers. The Provisional Government The issue became vital when Ewing Young, a prosperous settler, died without leaving a will. Without any recognized authority to dispose of his lands and buildings, the settlers decided that it was necessary to adopt a code of laws. Only a few days after Young’s death, the settlers voted to elect a sheriff and judge, although they were divided on whether they should erect a fully functional government. The arrival of new settlers over the next two years forced the issue. These new settlers further unsettled the Indians of the area, and the necessity of legally registering land claims was becoming more pressing as the population increased. Additionally, the Hudson’s Bay Company was bringing settlers into their section of the Oregon Country to the north. In 1843, the anxiety over the lack of government reached a head. A public discussion at the settlers’ debating club resolved that Oregon should establish itself as an independent nation. Soon afterwards, the debating club agreed that the settlers should wait four years to see if the United States would extend its protection. Lanford Hastings, one of the independence movement’s strongest advocates, left for California to draw settlers north. He stayed there to participate in the chaotic politics of the Mexican province. In his absence, the settlers began limited moves towards organized government. An elected committee began drawing up a code of laws, although the settlers decided against the provocative move of

OREGON

forming a militia. That fall, nearly 1,000 Americans arrived in Oregon. The Americans now outnumbered Oregon’s pro-British population by two to one. The new settlers were cool to independence, as they were certain Oregon would soon be an American territory. In May of 1844, expansionist James K. Polk was nominated as the Democratic Part’s presidential candidate. The settlers’ provisional government continued to take shape. Tensions rose, as the British and American factions both waited to hear whether Polk would take America to war against Britain. Both parties participated in the provisional government, but the situation was fraught with danger. Finally, the boundary was set as an extension of the US border along the 49th parallel by treaty in November of 1846. For two years, Congress failed to organize Oregon Territory due to the Mexican War and the bitter divide over slavery. It was not until August of 1848 that Oregon Territory was organized and the provisional government dissolved. Secessionism in Oregon Oregon’s politics became more complicated as the territory grew. The southern part of the territory was home to a number of miners who had headed north after the California Gold Rush of 1849. These prospectors, largely Democratic, were annoyed by the territory’s Whig governor and by the distance to Oregon’s capital at Salem. In 1853, Washington Territory was created, halving the size of Oregon. Inspired by this successful separation, a movement began to create a new territory in the south, which would also take part of northern California. A convention was scheduled for February of 1854, but was never held. In 1859, Oregon was admitted as a state, but was forced to cede its eastern districts to Washington. This was a result of the compromise needed to admit Oregon as a state—it was now a much more manageable size and it had a sizable Democratic majority. In the 1860 election, Lincoln won with a mere 36% of the vote—Oregon’s Joseph Lane was the running mate of John Breckinridge, and his presence on the ballot split the Democratic vote between Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas. After the secession crisis of 1860 led to the outbreak of civil war, a movement began to declare Oregon an independent republic, governed by Joseph Lane and allied with the South. This movement was practically stillborn, although pro-Union sentiment was weak enough for the governor to give a speech extolling the virtue of neutrality. The election of a strongly pro-Union governor in 1862 spurred the organization of a pro-Confederate secret society, the Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC). The KGC stockpiled arms and plotted assassinations. They never came close to achieving their goal of overthrowing Oregon’s government by force and declaring independence, although they were an obsession of Oregon’s government and citizens as late as 1864. After the Civil War, Oregon continued to grow and its problems grew with it. The old divide between the coast and the interior deepened. This divide was aggravated by differences in politics between Oregon’s more liberal cities and its more conservative rural areas. The differences were deep enough for several Oregon counties to mount a secession attempt in 1941 to create the state of

137

138

OYOTUNJI

Jefferson in union with counties in northern California. It is possible that only the attack on Pearl Harbor prevented this movement from succeeding. Cascadia While the dividing lines in Oregon politics have been stark, the urban centers have always had the upper hand, due to their greater economic power and population. After the Second World War, increasing urbanization increased this gap. The increasing liberalization of Oregon’s cities, especially the Portland area, was heavily influenced by the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s. This liberalism led the author Ernest Callenbach to imagine the Pacific Northwest as an independent utopia, ‘‘Ecotopia.’’ A number of people in the Pacific Northwest have seized on Callenbach’s idea, especially since the election of George W. Bush and a perceived rightward shift in national politics. A small group of activists have proposed, largely tongue in cheek, that the states of Oregon and Washington should secede along with northern California and British Columbia to form the new nation of Cascadia. While their movement is unlikely to succeed, the Oregon government has a long history of defying federal laws that it does not agree with. In recent years, Oregon’s policies towards assisted suicide, medical marijuana, and the Patriot Act have put it at odds with the federal government. Further Reading Carey, Charles H. General History of Oregon Through Early Statehood. Portland, OR: Binfords and Mort, 1971. Johansen, Dorothy O. Empire of the Columbia: A History of the Pacific Northwest, Second Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Lavender, David. Land of Giants: The Drive to the Pacific, 1750-1950. New York: Doubleday, 1958. Zapato, Lyle. The Republic of Cascadia. http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/

Oyotunji. As the Black Power movement grew out of the civil rights movement in the late 1960s, many African-Americans debated the possibility of secession. The establishment of an independent black nation is a goal of the Nation of Islam. A smaller group, New Afrika, has set up a provisional government, and considers itself the rightful authority over five southern states. While the political aspect of black empowerment has received a great deal of attention, the black power movement also enthusiastically attempted to revive African traditions. In some cases, such as the Nation of Islam’s unorthodox Muslim doctrine or the annual celebration of Kwanzaa, this cultural tradition owes as much to modern interpretation as it does to African custom. One group has dedicated itself to recreating not just an African state, but an African society within the United States. Walter King passionately believed that the civil rights movement was only half of an answer. He was determined to resurrect an African way of life. In 1959, he was initiated into a traditional African priesthood in Cuba. Upon his return to the United States, King renamed himself Efuntola Oseijeman Adefunmi and

OYOTUNJI

began organizing a version of African orisa worship. In 1970, he founded the African Nationalists Independence Partition Party. As the leader of this party, Adefunmi began searching for land to establish an independent black nation. In 1972, he founded the village of Oyotunji along the coast of South Carolina. Adefunmi declared himself King, and attempted to organize the village along traditional Yoruba lines. The Yoruba, one of the largest tribes of Nigeria, accepted Adefunmi’s mission and formally adopted him as a priest in 1972 and as a hereditary king in 1981. The village has served as a curiosity of sorts. South Carolina’s Department of Tourism helped fund the village’s creation, and the Yoruba charges tourists to observe them as they go about daily life and perform rituals. At the same time, Oyotunji represents a very real commitment. The Yoruba religion is practiced faithfully. In 1975, the village seriously debated secession from the United States, but decided that economic considerations made it impossible. From its meager beginnings, the village has thrived. Oyotunji has several hundred residents, and has expanded from 12 acres to several hundred. Adefunmi was eager to use his unique position to teach African history and customs to visitors, and served as a high-profile consultant. In 2005, Adefunmi died and his son ascended to the throne as Oyotunji’s second Oba. Further Reading African Theological Archministry. Oyotunji Village. http://www.oyotunjiafricanvillage.org/ Sneed, Michael. ‘‘Only king in US contented in his voodoo kingdom.’’ Chicago Tribune, December 18, 1980.

139

P Paradise, Kingdom of. In 1736, a man named Johann Gottlieb Priber arrived in the Cherokee lands of western Georgia. It is uncertain how Priber got to the Cherokee lands, and although many contemporaries suspected him of working for the French government, there is no evidence of this. Once Priber arrived, he began teaching the Cherokee everything he could, and learned the Cherokee language and ways as well. Before long, he had married a Cherokee woman and been adopted into the tribe. As a chief, Priber soon commanded immense influence over the Cherokee. He busily set about organizing the Cherokee into a utopian state. He started advising the tribe against the wiles of the colonial powers. He also taught them the use of standard weights and measures, which earned him the undying hatred of English traders who had grown rich by cheating the Cherokee. Visitors were lectured on how the Cherokee ‘‘Kingdom of Paradise’’ would serve as a model for the European states, where citizenship would be based on sworn principles instead of blood, goods would be owned and shared in common, and the leaders would be chosen by the people. The English authorities grew increasingly uneasy over Priber’s influence in the Cherokee lands. At the time, the English claim over Georgia was young and fragile. The colony of Georgia, under the leadership of Sir James Oglethorpe, had been founded in 1733. Oglethorpe was a reformer and an idealist who had gathered his colonists by freeing them from debtors’ prison. However, he was a poor administrator, and the colony did not thrive. The growing power and confidence of the Cherokee alarmed him, especially while the colony was at war with Spain (as it was from 1739-1742). Oglethorpe soon convinced himself that Priber was in league with England’s foreign enemies. Since no German power threatened English hegemony, and since Priber spoke French, the English soon concluded that Priber was an agent of the French crown. When Priber entered Creek lands on a trading mission in 1743, the local traders persuaded the Creeks to abduct him. Priber was brought before Oglethorpe, who questioned him and seized several of his manuscripts, including a sort of manual for statecraft entitled Paradise. Oglethorpe declared Priber to be a spy, and imprisoned him for life. Priber died in the island prison of Fort Frederica a few years later, his books discarded and lost. Further Reading Jackson, Edwin L. ‘‘James Edward Oglethorpe.’’ In New Georgia Encyclopedia. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org

142

PUERTO RICO

Linebaugh, Peter and Marcus Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000. Orr, Russell. ‘‘Tellico Plains Scene of Ill-Starred Indian Plot to Win Back America.’’ Zanesville Signal, June 27, 1943. Trivette, Jerry. ‘‘Appalachian Summit: a documentary history.’’ http:// appalachiansummit.tripod.com

Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a curiosity in American political life, a selfgoverning commonwealth in free association with the United States. In the century since the United States seized the island from Spain, Puerto Rico has had a complicated relationship with the mainland, exacerbated by the presence of a thriving and occasionally violent independence movement. Puerto Rico is one of the largest islands in the Caribbean, the easternmost of the Greater Antilles. Much of the island was formed through volcanic activity— nearly three-quarters of Puerto Rico consists of mountainous highlands. The coastal plains are semi-tropical and fertile. Puerto Rico Under Spanish Rule Puerto Rico was first discovered by Europeans when Christopher Columbus found the island during his second voyage of exploration in 1493. At the time, the island was populated by the Tainos, likely descendents of the South American Arawak tribe. The Tainos were agriculturalists, who lived in small villages and supplemented their diet with some hunting and fishing. At the time of Columbus’s arrival, the Tainos numbered between 20,000 and 50,000, and were at war with the neighboring Caribs, who were renowned for their ferociousness in battle. The first European settlement on the island was under the command of Ponce de Leo´n, who constructed the village of Caparra in 1508. The Spanish were quick to establish an encomienda system on Puerto Rico as they had elsewhere in their new empire. The encomienda was an adaptation of European feudalism. The Tainos suffered greatly from their enslavement, and succumbed to a series of epidemics. By 1514, less than 4,000 Tainos were left on Puerto Rico, and their numbers were decimated again by a smallpox epidemic in 1519. With the Tainos virtually extinct and the gold mines exhausted, the Spanish turned to sugar cane to prop up the island’s economy. The backbreaking labor necessary to cultivate sugar was supplied by African slaves. By 1530, the colony was a backwater, populated by 400 Spanish, less than 2,000 Tainos, and 4,000 slaves. The fabulous riches of the conquered Aztecs and Incas drew much more attention. However, Puerto Rico’s strategic position at the eastern end of the Greater Antilles meant it could not be completely ignored. The island developed a rigid class system, with a small military elite ruling over a rural populace of small farmers, many of whom were the descendants of Taino and black slaves who had escaped into the mountainous interior of Puerto Rico. The island’s leadership, contemptuous of their subjects and distant from supervision, developed a sense of independence. The Spanish policy of mercantilism, which banned foreign traders from their ports, was cheerfully ignored by

PUERTO RICO

both the rulers and the ruled of Puerto Rico. Smugglers and pirates found the island a haven throughout much of the island’s colonial history. The collapse of the Spanish Empire after Spain’s conquest by Napoleon in the early nineteenth century passed over Puerto Rico at first. In 1815, Spain’s new liberal government enacted some trade reforms, largely recognizing the thriving smuggling trade as legitimate. Other reforms were not as easily won. Some leaders took the burden of agitating for change upon themselves. The Spanish were reluctant at best to do much. By the 1860s, the reformers had decided that Puerto Rico could expect nothing more as part of the Spanish Empire. Ramo´n Emeterio Betances, a respected doctor, became the leader of the new independence movement. After several periods of exile for his outspoken demands for freedom, Betances returned in 1860 and began organizing a secret army. His movement gained momentum after revolts were launched in Cuba in 1865. Betances was detained while bringing a shipload of rifles and cannons to Puerto Rico, but his followers rose up without them. On September 23 of 1868, the independence of Puerto Rico was declared at the small town of Lares. The rebellion was stillborn, as local militias crushed the so-called ‘‘Grito de Lares’’ before the rebels could organize a military force. Conscious of their unpopularity and relative weakness, a new Spanish government declared amnesty for the rebels four months later. The abolition of slavery in the Spanish territories, finally adopted in 1873, exacerbated discontent with Spanish rule among the influential planter class. This disaffection deprived the Spanish of their best allies on the island. At the same time, the people were increasingly unwilling to tolerate arbitrary military government and crushing poverty. Five percent of the populace owned all of the island’s land. In 1897, Diego Mun ˜ oz Rivera, leader of the Liberal Party, announced that he had struck a deal with the Spanish government. On November 9, the Spanish cabinet granted autonomy to Puerto Rico, hoping to avoid a rebellion like the one consuming Cuba and defuse tensions with the United States. Whether the agreement would have worked will never be known. In February of 1898, the battleship Maine exploded in Havana, and two months later the Spanish-American War was underway. American Occupation and Disappointment The beginning of the American era in Puerto Rico came on May 12, 1898, when battleships cruised into the harbor of San Juan and shelled the city. News streamed in of American victories in Cuba and the Pacific. Mun ˜ oz Rivera and the island’s other leaders anxiously debated their next move, conscious that the Spanish era was over. They decided to greet the Americans with a fait accompli. On July 18, the island’s Parliament convened and declared itself an autonomous government. A week later, American troops landed in the south. Relations were convivial at first, as the Americans took pains to treat the Puerto Ricans well. On August 13, news came of the armistice that ended the war. The autonomous government tried strenuously to gain recognition by the Americans, but the armistice terms required that all political matters be settled

143

144

PUERTO RICO

at the treaty negotiations. On October 18, General John Brooke assumed the title of military governor. The autonomous government was dissolved. This disappointment was the first of many for Puerto Ricans. When the final treaty was ratified, Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States. In 1900, Congress declared the island a possession, without representation and under an appointed governor. Insult was added to injury in 1902, when the United States allowed Cuba to gain its independence. These defeats helped to encourage a political paralysis in Puerto Rico. The two main parties, Mun ˜ oz Rivera’s Liberal Party and the pro-independence Unionist Party under Jose´ de Diego, cooperated to forestall real reform—economic prosperity might have reconciled Puerto Ricans to American rule. In 1917, the Jones Act granted Puerto Ricans citizenship and a degree of political freedom but many opposed the act, refusing to accept a citizenship that had been foisted upon them. Puerto Rico From 1932 to 1952 The political situation deteriorated when the Great Depression wiped out demand for Puerto Rican coffee and sugar exports. Two new political leaders came to the forefront—Luis Mun ˜ oz Marı´n (the son of Mun ˜ oz Rivera) and Pedro Albizu Campos. Mun oz Marı ´ n became a leader in the Unionist Party. ˜ Albizu Campos, a Harvard-educated lawyer, was a skilled demagogue who took the tiny Nationalist Party’s leadership in 1924 and built it into a formidable political force. In April of 1932, Albizu provoked a riot that stormed Puerto Rico’s Capitol after the Senate adopted the Nationalists’ flag as the official flag of the Territory of Puerto Rico. One person was killed—further bloodshed was only averted because the mob’s weight collapsed a staircase leading to the Senate chambers. In the wake of the riot, the Nationalists lost support. In the 1932 elections, Mun ˜ oz Marı´n was elected to the Senate for the Unionist Party (soon to become the Liberal Party) while Albizu’s Nationalists garnered a miserable one percent of the vote. Albizu reacted in a fury, renouncing electoral politics. In December of 1932, he declared himself President of the Republic of Puerto Rico and organized a Cadet Corps, a black-shirted militia modeled on the Nazi Party’s SA. This radicalization alarmed the new administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Mun ˜ oz Marı´n went to Washington and lobbied for a comprehensive aid package, which the federal government was quick to provide. This economic aid was not matched by significant political progress. Albizu and his followers did their best to keep anger boiling, through a campaign of bombings and assassinations. Puerto Rico was in the headlines often these days, and many Americans were tired of hearing about the island’s tumultuous politics in a time of domestic crisis. In April of 1936, Senator Millard Tydings introduced a bill granting independence to Puerto Rico. The bill made no provisions to help prepare the island for independence or to provide economic assistance. Independence under these terms would have destroyed the island’s economy, and many Puerto Ricans rejected it. After a bitter debate in Washington and in San Juan, the

PUERTO RICO

bill was voted down. Shortly thereafter, Albizu was arrested for conspiracy and inciting rebellion. He was sentenced to six years in prison. The Nationalists demonstrated angrily. In March of 1937, marchers gathered in the town of Ponce despite the withdrawal of their permit. The island’s governor, General Blanton Winship, gathered a force of policemen and soldiers and ordered them to disperse. Unarmed and defiant, the Nationalists began to march. Almost instantly, the police opened fire with rifles and machine guns. 19 were killed and over 200 wounded. After this, the Nationalists went underground, and resolved not to present themselves as ready targets again. In 1938, Mun ˜ oz formed the new Popular Democratic Party—he had been expelled from the Liberals over his opposition to the Tydings bill. In the elections that year, Mun ˜ oz gained control of Puerto Rico’s government. He launched Operation Bootstrap, a broad effort to improve the island’s economy. In large part, it succeeded. Puerto Rico’s economy boomed, becoming one of the strongest in the Caribbean. In 1948, Mun ˜ oz became Puerto Rico’s first elected governor. He continued to press for political reform to match the island’s economic success. These reforms angered the Nationalists and Albizu, who returned to Puerto Rico from prison and exile in 1947. As Mun ˜ oz continued to make life more tolerable, many Puerto Ricans grew reconciled to American rule. In 1948, Albizu gave a fiery speech calling for independence. While Albizu agitated, Mun ˜ oz worked within the system. In July of 1950, Congress passed Public Law 600. The law granted Puerto Rico the right to organize its own constitutional government. Albizu began planning a revolution, training a Nationalist militia and stockpiling weapons. On October 30, 1950, his house in San Juan was surrounded by police. Albizu ordered the revolution to begin. Few Nationalists answered the call to arms, but the town of Jayuya was seized by a small cadre. The U.S. declared martial law. Artillery and bombers began attacking Jayuya. In the United States, a pair of Nationalist assassins attempted to kill President Harry Truman, narrowly failing. Another assassin tried unsuccessfully to kill Governor Mun ˜oz. In the wake of the uprising, Albizu was arrested, along with over 1,000 other Nationalists. Several people were arrested in New York, where Nationalist sympathizers among the Puerto Rican population there had assisted the assassins. In 1951, Puerto Rico’s voters approved Public Law 600 in a referendum. The following year, they voted overwhelmingly to adopt their first constitution. On July 25, 1952, Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth, a separate entity in free association with the United States. Puerto Rico to the Present Day Mun ˜ oz pardoned Albizu in 1953. Albizu repaid the compliment the next year, when Nationalists smuggled machine guns into the U.S. House of Representatives and opened fire from the visitors’ gallery, wounding several Congressmen. Albizu was arrested following a siege of his house again, and this time spent almost the remainder of his life in prison. In extremely poor health,

145

146

PUERTO RICO

he was released in 1963 after another pardon from Mun ˜ oz, and spent his last months quietly as a free man. In 1964, Governor Mun ˜ oz retired. In 1967, a plebiscite was held on Puerto Rico’s political future. The vast majority of voters chose to remain a commonwealth, rejecting the options of statehood or independence. Since the 1967 plebiscite, support for the commonwealth has eroded. Today, Puerto Rico has a population of nearly four million. Millions more of Puerto Rican descent live in the United States. The island’s economy is extremely robust, with a per capita GDP of over $18,000. Life expectancy is also high. Despite these outward signs of progress, ambivalence over Puerto Rico’s association with the United States remains. Several small nationalist groups continue to press for independence. Relations between Puerto Rico and the United States government have grown cooler in recent years. In 1993 and 1998, unofficial plebiscites were again held. The 1993 plebiscite showed a narrow majority (48% to 46%) supported commonwealth status over statehood. By 1998, dissatisfaction had grown to the point where a majority of voters chose ‘‘none of the above,’’ with 46% again choosing statehood. In 1999, a civilian guard was killed at a U.S. bombing test range on the island of Vieques. Opposition to the bombing range exploded, especially as the use of depleted uranium rounds at the Vieques range became widely known. In May of 2003, the U.S. Navy relinquished control of Vieques. The same year, the governor of Puerto Rico provoked a standoff with the federal government when he asserted his power to make some foreign policy decisions. He was defeated by a moderate candidate in the 2004 elections. It appears likely that Puerto Rico’s separatist and statehood movements will gain strength in the coming years. The majority of Puerto Ricans are dissatisfied with their status as a Commonwealth. Support for independence, while still miniscule, is much stronger than it was even a few years ago. Finally, the increasingly assertive stance of Puerto Rico’s government and the successful movement to expel the U.S. Navy from Vieques have given Puerto Rican activists a taste of victory. Further Reading Allen, Mike and Sue Anne Pressley. ‘‘Puerto Rico Bombing to End in 2003.’’ Washington Post, June 14, 2001, A01. Brau, Maria M. Island in the Crossroads: The History of Puerto Rico. Garden City, NY: Zenith Books, 1968. Hauberg, Clifford A. Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974. Hunter, Stephen and John Bainbridge, Jr. American Gunfight: The Plot to Kill Harry Truman—and the Shoot-Out That Stopped It. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005. Jime´nez de Wagenheim, Olga. Puerto Rico’s Revolt for Independence: El Grito de Lares. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985.

PUERTO RICO

Levin, Kate. ‘‘Vieques Aftermath.’’ The Nation, December 22, 2003. http:// www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/levin U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources. The Results of the 1998 Puerto Rico Plebiscite. Serial No. 106-A, Nov. 19, 1999.

147

R Rhode Island. Colonial Rhode Island; the Crisis of 1789 Rhode Island was founded 1636. Roger Williams established the colony as a refuge for religious dissidents from England and the repressive Puritan governments of New England. The original colonial charter contained several extremely progressive elements, such as its ironclad guarantees of religious freedom. However, the charter was also an artifact of the seventeenth century, and fixed the allocation of legislative seats based on the population distribution of the time. Most importantly, the charter restricted voting rights to landowning white males, and contained no mechanism for amendment besides appeal to the imperial authorities in England. At the outset of the American Revolution, the landowners of Rhode Island were united behind the Continental Congress and the drive for independence. Therefore, unlike in most of the other 13 colonies, the original charter was carried forward into the postindependence era. The people of Rhode Island were fiercely devoted to their independence. Rhode Island severed its relationship with Britain two months before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Rhode Island refused to participate in the drafting of the Constitution, as its government was concerned that the new federal government would use its increased powers to erode the rights of its citizens. Following the news in March of 1789 that enough states had ratified the document to bring the Constitution into force, Rhode Island’s legislature declared that the United States had been dissolved. While they took pains to ensure the other states that Rhode Island would continue to view them as friends, they also enacted a tariff on all goods coming from outside Rhode Island. Merchants in neighboring states responded by boycotting Rhode Island goods and refusing to sell the state grain. The Rhode Island economy soon stood at the brink of collapse, and manufacturers and merchants pleaded with the government to reconsider. The resistance of Rhode Island’s government was also weakened by the passage of the Bill of Rights. On May 29, 1790, the legislature capitulated and ratified the Constitution, rejoining the United States. The debate over ratification was rancorous, and passed by only two votes in the legislature. The city of Providence, dominated by mercantile interests desperate to end the boycott, had made preparations to secede and join the United States by itself if ratification failed.

150

RHODE ISLAND

Thomas Dorr and the Civil War of 1842 Changes in Rhode Island after the Revolution rendered the Charter increasingly onerous. At independence, as many as three-quarters of the adult male population met voting requirements, but immigration and industrialization brought in many new residents who owned no land. As a result, the restrictive land ownership requirements (not to mention the disenfranchisement of women and non-whites) disqualified all but 10 percent of the total population from voting, and less than half of even the adult white males by 1841. The state’s government took little notice of the growing unrest, as its members clung to their traditional privileges. In 1833 an alliance of Providence workers and liberal patricians led by attorney Thomas Dorr began the Constitutional Party. Dorr was extremely conscientious, a reformer and abolitionist. He won election to the state legislature in 1834, although the Constitutional Party, in alliance with Rhode Island’s Whigs, failed to elect their candidate for governor. Dorr managed to force the calling of a constitutional convention, but conservatives sabotaged the deliberations and the convention ended with a whimper in June of 1835. The push for reform lost momentum until after the 1840 elections, when the conservatives (known as the ‘‘Charterites’’ for their adherence to the Royal Charter that served as Rhode Island’s constitution) won a large victory, despite clear signs that the majority of the people were tired of their rule. Angered by the results, the new Rhode Island Suffrage Association called for a People’s Convention, which drafted a new state code. Presented in an unofficial referendum in January of 1842, the code won overwhelming support from those who turned out to the polls. However, turnout was miserably low among Rhode Island’s upper class, and in southern towns dominated by the old order. A group of landowning conservatives issued their own new constitution, which granted some concessions while rigging the government to ensure a continued conservative majority. A March referendum narrowly rejected the so-called ‘‘Landholders’ Constitution.’’ On April 18, the Suffrage Association held a new unofficial election, which elected Dorr the Governor of Rhode Island. This escalation alarmed the political establishment greatly, and a coalition of Whigs and Democrats, who called themselves the ‘‘Law and Order’’ party, returned Governor Samuel King to office in their own election and stymied Dorr’s reformist attempts through intimidation, including a repressive law which established the holding of an unauthorized election as a criminal offense. After President John Tyler threatened federal intervention, Dorr declared his intention to fight not only the state government, but the entire United States. On May 3, Dorr entered Providence, and the Suffrage government swore in officials and repealed several laws in a marathon two-day legislative session. Dorr traveled to Washington and New York in search of support. While the federal government continued to refuse recognition, Dorr received encouragement from many ordinary citizens, and upon his return Dorr declared that he would ask for volunteers to defend his government from across the United States. This escalation closed the last doors to reconciliation. On May 18, 1842, Dorr led a militia raid on the state arsenal.

ROUGH AND READY, GREAT REPUBLIC OF

The raid was a fiasco. Dorr demanded the surrender of the arsenal, but its garrison firmly refused. Incensed, Dorr ordered his two cannon fired at the arsenal. Both cannons failed, and most of his troops melted away in the predawn confusion. The People’s Government pulled its troops back, and hastily began fortifications on nearby Federal Hill. Dorr, fearful of arrest, fled Rhode Island for New York. Dismayed, several legislators resigned from the Dorr government, and the militia he had called out surrendered their fortifications two days later. Dorr was not silent during his brief exile, gathering his forces and preparing to invade Rhode Island. Governor King responded by declaring martial law. When Dorr reappeared in late June, the Law and Order party summoned the state militia. With news of 4,000 men approaching his camp, Dorr surrendered and fled into exile again, this time in New Hampshire. In an attempt to defuse popular discontent, Governor King promulgated a new constitution, which retained property qualifications and gave immense power to rural voting districts. The new constitution was approved in a plebiscite by 7,024 to 51—out of a voting population of over 23,000. Worn out, Dorr returned to Rhode Island in 1843 and surrendered to the police. Four months later, he was found guilty of treason against the state (by a jury composed of his political opponents), and sentenced to life at hard labor. A year later, a new governor pardoned Dorr, and in 1854 his conviction was reversed by the State Assembly. The vindication wasn’t enough to restore Dorr’s failing health. He died in December of that year. In the wake of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, property restrictions on voting rights were declared unconstitutional, and full suffrage for males finally came to Rhode Island. Further Reading Cornwell, Elmer. Rhode Island History. 2004. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/ studteaguide/RhodeIslandHistory/rodehist.html Dorr, Thomas. ‘‘An Address to the People of Rhode Island’’, speech, 1834. Providence, RI: Knowles and Vose, 1843. Gettleman, Marvin E. The Dorr Rebellion: A Study in American Radicalism: 18331849. New York: Random House, 1973. Providence, City of. Providence: ‘‘Three and One-Half Centuries at a Glance.’’ Providence, RI: City of Providence. 1998. http://www.providenceri.com/ history.html Rhode Island General Assembly. History of the Rhode Island General Assembly. 2004. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/studteaguide/genhist.html

Rough and Ready, Great Republic of. Rough and Ready was founded as a mining camp northwest of Sacramento during the California Gold Rush of 1849. The leader of the first settlement, a Captain A. A. Townsend (who had served under Zachary ‘‘Rough and Ready’’ Taylor), was so impressed by the returns on their first few weeks of effort that he returned to Wisconsin to bring more settlers. When he and his new men arrived at Rough and Ready, they found squatters working the entire area. Townsend gave in to the

151

152

RYE

inevitable, allowing his men to strike out on their own. Within a few months, the settlement’s population had exploded to 3,000. The changing character of the camp brought frustration and resentment. As the best claims were staked out and more miners kept coming, Rough and Ready slid into the lusty chaos that plagued most mining camps of the period. As the citizens bemoaned the lack of law and order, the federal government added insult to injury by announcing a new tax on all mining claims. On April 7, 1850, the outraged citizens called a meeting to discuss their options. One can imagine the town leaders egging each other on until the following proclamation was written up and adopted by acclaim: Whereas, we the people, hereby establish a peaceful independent republic in the State of California. Furthermore, we declare because it be God’s will to perpetuity, we cease to be reduced to seeing our property and lives being taken over by those not of us, but those against us. Therefore, we the people, of the township of Rough & Ready, deem it necessary and prudent to withdraw from the territory of California and from these United States of America to form peacefully, if we can, and forcibly, if we must, THE GREAT REPUBLIC OF ROUGH & READY.

The first President was a Colonel E.F. Brundage. President Brundage, with minor revisions, adopted the Constitution of the United States as the guiding law of Rough and Ready. As the weeks wore on, some of the euphoria wore off. The mood in the town was further dampened by a major fire on June 28, 1850. On July 4, Brundage called another meeting to order. At the end of the meeting and after speeches pro and con, the people of Rough and Ready, swept up in the patriotic fervor of Independence Day, rejoined the United States. It has been unkindly noted that at the time, the federal government was searching for a place in the area to locate a new post office and that Rough and Ready’s political stars, firmly back in the American firmament, lobbied hard for the plum. The new post office opened in Rough and Ready on July 28, 1851. Further Reading Downing, Charles. Stabbed With a Wedge of Cheese and Other Cultural Oddities. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1992. Gudde, Erwin G. and Gudde, Elizabeth K., editors. California Gold Camps: a Geographical and Historical Dictionary of Camps, Towns, and Localities Where Gold Was Found and Mined, Wayside Stations and Trading Centers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1975. Jung, Pam. ‘‘A Fun Gold Town Called Rough And Ready.’’ The Union (Nevada County, CA), April 28, 2004. Rough and Ready Chamber of Commerce. ‘‘Secession from the U.S.A.’’ http://www.roughandreadychamber.com

Rye—see Newington.

S San Francisco. Early San Francisco California’s sudden entrance into the Union created much chaos. While the military governors of 1848 tried to carry forward the Mexican statutes until Congress could establish a territorial government, several communities simply organized their own governments independently. The temporary military government was alarmed by this tendency; back East, many feared that California was too distant to be governed and would declare independence. The situation was not helped by machinations in Washington; conflict between pro- and anti-slavery congressmen would delay California’s statehood until 1850. The vacuum of authority also encouraged lawlessness. In 1849, a group of former soldiers and failed miners organized themselves into a gang called ‘‘The Hounds,’’ and started terrorizing San Francisco, marching in military order through the streets and extorting food and supplies. In July, the Hounds crossed the line when they harassed, beat, and fired at a group of Mexican miners. The following day, 230 citizens of San Francisco organized as a posse to apprehend the Hounds. 19 Hounds were captured, including the group’s leader, Samuel Roberts. The posse organized a trial, appointing a grand jury, a panel of judges, and defense lawyers and prosecutors. The Hounds were found guilty of conspiracy and theft, and banished from San Francisco on pain of execution. This vigilante action was the direct inspiration for what would come next. In 1850, the new state constitution came into force. Regular administration slowly spread throughout the state, and San Francisco made important strides in organizing an effective government. California was highly Democratic, despite its fierce opposition to slavery—the Democrats had favored the Mexican War, while the Whigs had not. The Democrat David Broderick exercised tight control over local politics, under the watchful eye of Senator William Gwin, an alumnus of New York’s Tammany Hall. Their organization swiftly consolidated total control over the local government—the transitory nature of the mining population made it difficult to form an opposing organization. At the same time, the city’s population was swelling with disillusioned miners—and Australian ex-convicts, hardened by their travails and united by long association in crime, both in Australia and England. A network of Australians soon formed throughout San Francisco. By 1851, the Australian presence had evolved into a crime organization, called the Sydney Ducks.

154

SAN FRANCISCO

The citizens of San Francisco were disgusted by the state of their city in 1851. Organized criminals and corrupt politicians were bleeding San Francisco dry. Many people had become convinced that only extraordinary measures could restore the city’s well-being. The calls for reform were met by the Committee of Vigilance. The Committee of Vigilance—1851 The Committee, under the leadership of the local merchants Samuel Brannan, Isaac Bluxome, Jr., and William T. Coleman, had its first meeting in the California Engine House on June 9. The following day, they set forth a constitution which committed the Committee to ‘‘perform every lawful act for the maintenance of law and order.’’ The constitution warned, however, that ‘‘we are determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary, or assassin shall escape punishment.’’ The Committee was soon put to the test. Three days after the signing of the Constitution, a member of the Committee captured an Australian man, John Jenkins, in the act of stealing a safe. The Committee immediately formed a court, which shortly found Jenkins guilty and sentenced him to hang. Despite attempts by Jenkins’s friends and the San Francisco police to rescue him, the Committee hung him the next day in the city’s plaza. A coroner’s jury found the Committee responsible for the death, but no indictments followed. The city government did not dare to move against so many prominent citizens. The Committee soon followed this success with more activity. Throughout June, the Committee investigated several people and ordered them banished from the city. With the full cooperation of the U.S. Revenue Department, Committee members boarded ships and interrogated would-be immigrants. Those immigrants whose character seemed doubtful were forbidden from settling in San Francisco. The confrontation between the Committee and San Francisco’s government escalated sharply when a second man was hung for murder and robbery on July 11. He had been a captive of the Committee for weeks, while the city government had attempted several times to find him and remove him from the Committee’s custody. This act was therefore a much more serious insult to the government. A grand jury was summoned to decide on whether the Committee of Vigilance should be indicted for murder and conspiracy. Two of its members sat on the grand jury. The grand jury’s final report, while it acknowledged the illegality of the killings, recommended no arrests. Meanwhile, the Committee’s actions had spurred the government into demonstrating its efficiency. New criminal statutes were enacted, indictments (of non-Committee-related crime) were on the rise, and punishments were swifter and severer. Consequently, the Committee decided to hand over several of their prisoners to the courts in late July. This detente did not last. On August 19, California’s Governor MacDougal learned that the Committee planned to hang two of its prisoners the following day. The governor immediately left for San Francisco. In the company of the mayor and with a warrant, the governor called the sheriff and demanded that he serve the warrant to retrieve the two men. The three men, accompanied by

SAN FRANCISCO

a deputy, marched into the Committee’s headquarters and rescued the prisoners. The next day, the Committee’s leadership requested a meeting with the governor, mayor, and sheriff—a request which was incredibly granted. The meeting, while productive of goodwill all around, did not save the prisoners— the Committee took them out of the city jail in a lightning raid and executed them. Again, a grand jury found the Committee guilty of murder, and again no one was arrested. As the summer ended, the Committee’s sense of purpose began to fray. The hangings and deportations had lowered the crime rate, and the government was organized on a sounder footing, despite the lingering power of the Democratic machine. More importantly, many of the Committee’s members were having difficulty in providing their monthly dues. The Committee undertook a series of economies, moving twice into smaller accommodations and cutting the salaries of its permanent officers. Regular meetings continued, and the Committee deliberated on the cases of several prisoners. In October, the Committee responded to a forming riot on the docks by assisting police in dispersing the crowd. They also took the lead in forming San Francisco’s first public library. Despite these efforts to build respectability, the Committee could not overcome apathy and debt. It limped along, but to all purposes it was defunct when the last recorded minutes were written on June 30, 1852. The Committee of Vigilance—1856 After the dissolution of the Committee, the Democratic machine consolidated its control over San Francisco. At the same time, the crime rate skyrocketed. In November of 1855, a United States Marshal was killed in cold blood by Charles Cora, a notorious gangster with ties to the Democratic machine. Cora’s trial, corrupted and ineptly handled, ended in a hung jury. When newspaper editor James King, a former Committee member, published an editorial denouncing the corrupt city government, he was assassinated in broad daylight on May 14, 1856, by a city supervisor. Within two days, the Vigilance Committee was re-established under William T. Coleman. 2,500 men joined the Committee’s militia, and started drilling in companies of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. The Committee’s new headquarters were fortified. After the city’s elected officials raised an uproar, Coleman met with Governor J. Neely Johnson, and again came away with Sacramento’s complicity. On May 18, the Committee removed both gangsters from the San Francisco jail, held a rapid court-martial, and executed them both. Two more men accused of murder were also hung a few weeks later. The Vigilance Committee then set eagerly to the task of jailing or banishing most of the Democratic party officials in the city, accusing them (correctly) of graft and conspiracy. Appalled by this carnival of unconstitutionality, Justice Terry of the California Supreme Court arrived on June 21st and promptly got into a shouting match with a Committeeman who refused to surrender his rifle in the town square. Terry, inflamed, stabbed the man in the neck with a Bowie knife. The Committee arrested Justice Terry; he was put on trial and forced to sign a letter of resignation from the state Supreme Court. The unfortunate militiaman lived, and so Terry was not executed. On August 18, the Committee wrapped up its affairs and returned San Francisco to the

155

156

SAN JOAQUIN, REPUBLIC OF

elected officials. By most accounts, the United States has remained under democratic rule since that time. Further Reading Coblentz, Stanton A. Villians and Vigilantes: The Story of James King of William and Pioneer Justice in California. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, Inc., 1936. Lewis, Oscar. This Was San Francisco: being First-Hand Accounts of the Evolution of One of America’s Favorite Cities. New York: David McKing Co., 1962. Williams, Mary Floyd. History of the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851. New York: Da Capo Press, 1969.

San Joaquin, Republic of—see Aztlan. Sequoyah, State of. The region which is now Oklahoma came into the possession of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The eastern half of the state is well-watered and was formerly known as an excellent hunting ground; thousands of trappers and hunters made their livings there in the early nineteenth century. The western half is much drier, and was consequently less desirable to the early settlers. In 1830, Oklahoma’s character changed immensely, when Andrew Jackson pushed through the Indian Removal Bill, which sent thousands of Native Americans from their homes in the American South to Oklahoma. The so-called ‘‘Five Civilized Tribes,’’ the Creek (Muskogee), Cherokee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw, lived on vast reservations which took up most of Oklahoma. However, the western region remained relatively deserted. The tribes which had been removed to Oklahoma struggled to maintain their dignity and their distinct way of life in this new land. The anguish and chaos of the removal to the west slowly faded, as the Native American nations organized themselves on constitutional grounds, free from the constant pressure of white settlers, and began building a new home for themselves. The nations accepted the help of missionaries, and slowly began incorporating parts of the European tradition into their lives. Tensions began to grow, however, between the traditionalist factions of the five small republics and Native Americans, often of mixed blood, who embraced modernity and European mores and ideas. This brief flowering came to a brutal end during the American Civil War. In 1861, following Texas’s secession from the United States, Confederate agents pushed into Oklahoma. The Five Civilized Tribes were quick to ally with the Confederate cause, remembering old grudges against the American government. There was a more immediate cause as well—Abraham Lincoln, in order to appeal to voters on the frontier, had advocated the opening of Oklahoma to white settlement. In addition, many of Oklahoma’s most prominent citizens feared the loss of their slaves. By August of 1861, all tribes but the Cherokee had joined the Confederacy, and the Cherokee gave in after a Confederate victory in Missouri in October. In return, the Confederacy pledged that the domains of the Five Tribes would remain inviolate forever. Despite some early victories, the Confederacy’s position in Oklahoma steadily eroded. Union troops continued to push south into the region, and a pro-

SEQUOYAH, STATE OF

Union Cherokee government was proclaimed in 1863, dividing the tribes. As hopes of a battlefield victory faded, the war turned vicious. The last two years of the war in Oklahoma were marked by savage reprisals and bloody guerrilla warfare, from the devastating raids of Cherokee Confederate General Stand Watie to William Quantrill’s massacres and plundering of Union and Confederate towns. On July 14, 1865, three months after the surrender of Robert E. Lee, the last Confederate troops in Oklahoma surrendered. The federal government’s Reconstruction decrees were as harsh in Oklahoma as they were elsewhere. The treaties which ended the Civil War in Oklahoma stripped the Five Civilized Tribes of vast areas, which became dumping grounds for other tribes expelled to the area. The established tribes fought with the new arrivals, factions within each tribe tried to resolve the festering wounds of division, and clashes with new white settlers and the federal government were common. The end of the Civil War had created a single administration for Oklahoma, and the five tribes fought fiercely to establish themselves in the Indian Territory’s government. The long struggle came to a head shortly before Oklahoma was admitted as a state. For decades, Native Americans had been outnumbered by white settlers within the reservations, who demanded equal say and land ownership. In 1895, Congress passed the Curtis Act, which abolished tribal courts and provided for voting rights and land surveys. It was followed by the actions of the congressional Dawes Commission, which persuaded the tribes to give up communal ownership and adopt individual property rights. In 1901, a law was passed granting United States citizenship to all Native Americans in Oklahoma, which grated on the nerves of traditionalists who prided themselves on their distinct identity as Native Americans. Even as the Native Americans of eastern Oklahoma became determined to salvage some of their own political future, the new settlers in the west were hesitant to join with them in statehood. The new settlers were largely Republican, and were uneasy about sharing political power with the staunchly Democratic Civilized Tribes. Consequently, there was little uproar when tribal leaders began meeting in 1902 to draw up a constitution for a proposed State of Sequoyah, named after an esteemed Cherokee leader. The constitution was presented to the citizens of Indian Territory in a referendum, which produced an overwhelmingly affirmative result. The leaders of the Sequoyah Convention then presented the document to Congress, which was determined to ignore any faits accompli out of Oklahoma. In 1906, Congress passed the Oklahoma Enabling Act, which made it clear that Oklahoma would be admitted as a single state. Elections were held for a constitutional convention; out of 112 seats, 34 were given to participants in the Sequoyah Convention. Further Reading Foreman, Grant. A History of Oklahoma. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942. Gibson, Arrell Morgan. Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2nd Edition. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 1981.

157

158

SHASTA

Shasta—see Jefferson, State of. Sioux—see Dakota. South, the. The South is one of the most well-known and least well-defined of the regional divisions of the United States. Historically, the South comprised the United States south of the Mason-Dixon line, the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland. As the nation expanded to the west, so too did the sphere of Southern influence, especially in the warm temperate zone along the Gulf Coast where cotton production was most economically viable. Geography The South covers a huge expanse of land. Much of the area is warm and temperate, although Florida’s climate is largely subtropical and winters in the Appalachians can be a harsh and unforgiving as those much further north. The climate is more arid in the west, as the swamps of the lower Mississippi give way to the prairies and then near-desert of western Texas. The South’s geography is as varied as its climate. The Appalachians sprawl over much of the region. A number of small rivers flow east to the Atlantic. These rivers helped to shape the course of colonization, by providing an easy means of access to the hinterlands from the coast. The Ohio and Mississippi Rivers flow in the region’s west, and these massive rivers were even more vital as arteries of trade and communication. Upon the arrival of Europeans, vast woodlands covered much of the region. In many parts of the South, Native American agriculturalists carefully managed the forests, setting fires to clear a field for planting. After a few years, they would move on to a new area. Vast wetlands, now mostly vanished, sprawled along the coastline from Virginia to eastern Texas. The Indians of the South It is impossible to make generalizations about the Indians of the South. Culturally, they spoke dozens of languages, and had a wide variety of disparate traditions. Their political organization ranged from small nomadic bands to large agricultural chiefdoms. There were some unifying elements. Before European contact, the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys were dominated by a now-extinct Mound Builder culture. The Mound Builders, whose chiefdoms collapsed after epidemics followed the trade routes north from Mexico in the sixteenth century, are the ancestors of many modern tribes. Elements of their religion, social system, and agricultural and material culture survive throughout the region. One of the largest and most successful of the southern tribes were the Cherokee, who controlled a large part of the Appalachians from northern Georgia to western Virginia. The Muskogee or Creek confederation comprised a number of related tribes throughout Alabama and Georgia. Between the Muskogee and the Mississippi River, the Choctaw and Chickasaw were among the more powerful tribes. Besides these larger nations, a number of smaller tribes existed, especially in the coastal regions. Political organization was generally quite fluid. The most common unit of political organization was the village. While a village might

SOUTH, THE

identify as Muskogee, there were often members of other tribes. Besides a variety of languages and cultures inside the village, especially on cultural or tribal frontiers, there was a constant movement of traders, diplomats, and warriors. Fighting was endemic; the path to social status often lay through war, and young men were eager to escalate small slights into feuds which might embroil tribes for generations in order to make their name. European diseases and trade goods penetrated the region centuries before European settlers did. The chiefdoms of the river valleys were destroyed by epidemic before any European had laid eyes on them. The Indian world that the Europeans first made contact with was one that was already in upheaval. The arrival of further epidemics further weakened Native American societies throughout the South. Competition for European trade goods and the arrival of guns and alcohol made the chaos much worse. The South To 1700 A few European settlements were founded in the sixteenth century, but none survived except for a meager Spanish toehold in Florida. Consequently, most of the region’s colonial history is English. The first English settlement at Roanoke Island was founded in 1585, although the settlement’s residents disappeared in 1590. The fate of the settlers is still a mystery, although many authorities have abandoned suggestions of warfare with Native Americans in favor of the idea that the colonists joined a local tribe and simply assimilated into tribal life. The second settlement at Jamestown was founded in Virginia in 1607. After a tense period of confrontation with the Powhatan confederation, the colony took root and began to expand. The colonists hoped to find gold to match the Spanish discoveries in Mexico, but found a different route to wealth instead—the production of tobacco. The growth of the tobacco trade shaped the history of the entire region. Payment in land was the only kind the cashstrapped colonial government could easily offer. This helped to establish the South as an agricultural economy. The more successful these farmers became, the more the economy became focused on agriculture. Throughout the seventeenth century, small landholdings spread out from the original harbor towns. However, a growing upper class began to expand their farms to establish the first plantations. They were aided in this process by the exhaustion of the soil in older areas, which forced many smaller landowners to sell their farms and move on. The largest cost to the plantation owners was labor. Consequently, the use of forced labor became widespread. As local Indian populations plummeted due to disease and warfare, indentured servants were imported, many of them Scottish or Irish. These new immigrants were forced into slavery in order to repay the cost of their transport to America, although many of them were able to regain their freedom after a few years’ labor. In 1619, the first shipment of African slaves arrived in Virginia. They soon became the primary source of cheap labor for the growing tobacco and cotton plantations. The growth of the plantations soon created a landed aristocracy. This group of men soon came to see themselves as the lords of their small realm. In 1635,

159

160

SOUTH, THE

Virginia’s leaders arrested and expelled the governor. The intransigence of the wealthy colonists led the English government to send a new governor. The collapse of the English monarchy and establishment of the English Commonwealth in 1640 gave Virginia another taste of self-government. The plantation aristocracy reluctantly made peace with the Commonwealth, and basically governed itself during Cromwell’s reign as Lord Protector. During this period, Virginia became a bastion of royalism. After the fall of the Commonwealth, Virginia’s government drove the Quakers and Puritans out of the colony. Heavy taxes were placed on tobacco exports, driving many farmers to abandon their farms and move further to the west. The aristocracy’s high-handed actions drove Virginia into rebellion. In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon assembled many of the colony’s farmers and seized Jamestown, burning the city. Bacon’s Rebellion was cut short by an outbreak of fever and the aristocracy regained control. Similar troubles plagued North Carolina, which was not yet under the grasp of the plantation economy. North Carolinian society was still much more egalitarian, and the colony’s government was barely able to maintain control of the fractious and fiercely independent colonists. South Carolina’s society was much different. Unlike the yeoman farmers of North Carolina or the tobacco plantations of Virginia, South Carolina’s economic backbone was the production of rice during this time. This crop required strenuous labor, and slavery was established in South Carolina on the oppressive model of the West Indian plantations. The South To the Revolution Throughout the eighteenth century, the colonists spread rapidly across the region. Georgia was first settled in 1733. The Spanish and the French also established themselves along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Population growth, soil exhaustion, stifling government, and the growth of the large plantations continued to push colonists away from the coast and into lands where the Native American nations still held power. A number of small wars erupted during the early eighteenth century, including the Yamasee War of 1715, which nearly destroyed South Carolina. A pivotal event in American history occurred in 1754, when the French and Indian War broke out. The continuing advance of English settlers threatened the French claim to the Louisiana Territory. A brief period of armed confrontation ended with the destruction of an English frontier fort under the command of Colonel George Washington. While the war’s main actions were fought in the North and in Canada, the peace treaty set the future of the entire British Empire in America. Canada, Florida, and the Ohio Valley became British territory while Louisiana was transferred to Spain. The loss of their French allies provoked many Indian nations to declare war, and a series of wars broke out along the entire frontier. The British government constructed a series of frontier fortifications and levied taxes on the American colonies to pay for them. These troubles were combined with the eruption of violence between the wealthy few who controlled American politics and the vast majority of the American populace. In Massachusetts, radicals such as Samuel Adams were

SOUTH, THE

openly agitating for rebellion. A conspiracy of sailors and free blacks was uncovered while plotting to seize the city of New York. In North Carolina, poor farmers banded together in the Regulator movement and faced down the British Army in a firefight that took 30 lives. In the aftermath of the uprising, hundreds were arrested. Many settlers moved still further into the frontier, provoking further fighting with Indian nations and requiring yet more military protection and therefore more taxes. The taxes and a series of centralizing measures, now collectively known as the Intolerable Acts, came at the worst possible time. The growing population was increasingly difficult to manage, especially as it moved further from the centers of colonial government. The Americans, as many had begun to identify themselves, were intensely proud of their performance in the French and Indian War. They were irritated by the British government’s treaties with Indian nations in which they were not consulted. Most of all, the Americans had managed their own affairs during the long period of benign neglect before the French and Indian War. The reassertion of a strong royal authority, combined with the growing expense of military upkeep, provoked a fierce response. The Continental Congress was formed, to coordinate political activities and present a unified face in the colonies’ confrontation with England. Many of the independence movement’s strongest leaders were members of the Virginia aristocracy, notably Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry. On April 19, 1775, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired in Massachusetts. The South In The Revolution During the war’s first years, the English concentrated their efforts on the northern states. The lines of supply to Canada were much shorter, and the British hoped the war would end once towns like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia fell. The American Congress refused to give in, and the war continued. Life went on in the occupied cities, while the Continental Army led the British around the nation in an exhausting chase. On the Appalachian frontier, the war was much more desperate for the civilian population. The Cherokees, Muskogee, and other nations rose up against the Americans. They needed little encouragement—the economic and political pressure of the last few years had driven thousands of settlers into Indian lands. Outside the effective control of the British, such independent settlements as Watauga and Transylvania threw themselves into the fray in support of the established colonies, and were besieged throughout much of the war. The British fared well in the far south—Georgia and the Carolinas were largely under British control throughout the war. In the South as in the North, many maintained allegiance to Britain and fought on the British Empire’s behalf, although the majority of colonists tried their best to stay out of the way of both armies. The war in the south was even more confused and bloody than the northern war. The war divided communities and entire populations were forced to evacuate as the fortunes of war shifted. In addition, the British government declared that it would grant freedom to any slave who volunteered to fight for Britain. This added a new layer of complication to the war, and a

161

162

SOUTH, THE

new level of bitterness as slaveowners went to extreme lengths to prevent their slaves from escaping to British lines. Further north, America’s largest colony was able to maintain its independence. The British army was expelled from Virginia in late 1775. Despite a number of raids, Virginia was under effective American control until Lord Cornwallis led a large British army into the state from the south. In September of 1781, Cornwallis was trapped by an American army and a French fleet and forced to surrender his army at Yorktown. This battle was the last major fight of the American Revolution. In the west, nearly all of the Native American tribes made peace over the next few years, although few were reconciled to the independent United States. Many slaves escaped over the mountains, and by the turn of the century nearly every Native American tribe in the South counted adopted black members among their number. One tribe in southern Delaware so thoroughly adapted itself to its black members that their language was completely replaced by the African Mandingo language. From 1783 to 1860 The early years of independence under the Articles of Confederation were contentious. The states quarreled among themselves over tariffs, repayment of war debts, and a number of other issues. By the time the Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787, it had become plain that the future of the United States was in serious jeopardy. The Constitution which was ratified in 1789 strove to maintain a balance between the nation’s larger and smaller states, and to defuse growing sectional tensions between the North, the South, and the West across the Appalachians. One of the most contentious issues was the apportionment of debts from the Revolution. The southern states suggested dividing responsibility on the basis of population. The smaller northern states argued that the South, as a result of the value of its slaves, should count them in the division. A compromise was reached, whereby slaves counted as three-fifths of a person in dividing the debt burden. This compromise was carried over into the apportionment of legislative seats, giving the South over-representation in the House of Representatives. From the beginning of the new republic, the South was at odds with the North. By the late 1790s, when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, some Virginians were ready to secede. In the North, several states began banning slavery. For a brief period, the institution seemed fated to wither on the vine. This changed in 1794, when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. The invention made it possible for a worker to remove seeds from cotton 50 times faster than by hand. The cotton gin turned slavery from a marginal and doomed experiment into a vastly lucrative proposition. The South’s plantations began a long period of expansion. The hunger for land drove most of America’s early acquisitions, including the Spanish lands along the Gulf Coast and the Louisiana Territory. The growing power of the South, and its alliance with the mushrooming populations of the new agricultural states of the West, were behind the War of 1812, fought for the sake of expansion and economic issues that did not concern the

SOUTH, THE

North. New England states, frustrated by their sudden eclipse, contemplated secession. The war’s end led to a surge of patriotic pride, but it did little to end the underlying tensions between North and South. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a state, but also admitted Maine. In addition, most of the Louisiana Territory was closed to slavery. The bitter debate over the Compromise threatened the alliance between Southern and Western interests. As settlers moved into the West, few of the pioneers could find common cause with the great plantation owners. The 1820s aggravated the new split, when the western candidate Andrew Jackson lost the 1824 election in the House of Representatives. Antagonism between President John Quincy Adams and the South erupted over tariffs, foreign policy, and the Southern desire to open Indian lands to settlement. The question of tariffs was a sore subject with the Southern states. Their economies were utterly reliant on exports. While the federal government was dependent on tariffs to fund itself, the South was opposed to anything which would slow the growth of the highly profitable cotton plantations. The South was also understandably upset over shouldering two-thirds of the cost of the federal government. The controversy led to the 1832 Nullification Crisis, in which Andrew Jackson sent military forces to prevent the secession of South Carolina. The South Carolina government asserted that it retained sovereignty and had never surrendered its independence to the federal government. President Jackson rejected this argument, but the doctrine of state sovereignty promulgated during the crisis took root throughout the South. Ironically, many of the ideas embraced by the South Carolina leaders were first expressed when New England flirted with secession during the War of 1812. Over the next few decades, the population of the West continued to grow dramatically. As the western states grew, it became steadily more apparent that the slave states were losing political power, despite their over-representation in Congress. Southern states pushed hard for the acquisition of new lands, especially Texas and later Cuba, where a slave economy could be established. On a number of occasions, Southern representatives frustrated efforts by Western territories to organize elected governments, fearful of admitting more free states into the Senate. As slavery’s advocates lost political power, they also lost economic power. The massive growth of Northern and Western cities led to a huge increase in industrial and infrastructural capability. More and more, the South felt isolated. This political isolation fed a growing sense of Southern identity. The South had long cherished its distinct traditions. As many aspects of Southern life came under increasing criticism—its aristocratic politics, its relative lack of economic opportunity, and above all, slavery—many Southerners realized that they were a shrinking minority. Many reacted defensively, arguing for the moral and cultural superiority of their culture. White Southerners came to see themselves as embattled, as upholders of a just cause, and as different from other Americans. By the late 1850s, this cycle of pressure and reaction had developed into a nascent sense of Southern nationalism.

163

164

SOUTH, THE

A number of events brought the Southern nationalists to the forefront of state politics. The long series of compromises which had kept the peace between South and North had broken down following the difficult Compromise of 1850, which admitted California as a free state and strengthened the Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed southern slaveowners to hunt down runaways in the North. This angered many Northerners, and the abolitionist movement gained a great deal of strength over the 1850s. The states admitted during this period were all free states, and the delicate balance in the Senate was gone. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 left the issue of slavery in those territories up to a popular vote. As a result, Kansas became the center of a guerrilla conflict. The conflicts over ‘‘Bleeding Kansas’’ helped spur the 1856 foundation of the Republican Party, which was staunchly anti-slavery and helped create a stark divide over the issue. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that Congress could not halt the spread of slavery in federal territories. Two years later, the abolitionist John Brown led a slave rebellion which briefly seized the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry in Virginia. By 1860, these events had provoked a great deal of anger and hysteria on both sides of the anti-slavery debate. There was little room left for moderates to maneuver in. Especially in the South, radicals gained influence and power. While secessionists had been corresponding and advocating independence for years, it was not until 1860 that all the factors were in place to allow a serious move for secession. The emergence of the Republican Party as a political power and the likely nomination of Abraham Lincoln helped fuel Southern intransigence. The Congressional session of early 1860 was paralyzed by bitter fighting over the election of a House Speaker. Secessionists took control of the Southern wing of the Democratic Party. At the party’s April 1860 convention in Charleston, South Carolina, the secessionists worked to engineer a split, believing that a Republican presidential victory would narrow the South’s choices and allow them to push for independence. They succeeded, and the Southern delegates walked out of the convention. The split in the Democratic Party all but guaranteed a Republican victory, despite the best efforts of many moderates to engineer another compromise. By this point, it was too late. The looming specter of a Republican president, combined with the loss of Southern influence in the Democratic Party, discredited Southern moderates and deepened the sense of crisis. The secessionists, dubbed ‘‘fire-eaters’’ for their reckless single-mindedness, encouraged the continuing downward spiral. Secession and the Formation of the Confederacy By October of 1860, the outcome of the election was clear. South Carolina’s Governor William Gist sent letters under guard to the other Southern leaders, urging them to join him in seceding. The rest of the states were more hesitant. When the election results came in, South Carolina was first to act. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina declared its independence. In January of 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana also seceded. Texas was still in the process of seceding, delayed by Governor Sam Houston. The

SOUTH, THE

rest of the slave states hesitated, unwilling to move unless provoked by armed intervention. The seceding states realized that they faced a serious crisis. It was entirely likely that South Carolina’s intemperate provocations over the federal garrison at Fort Sumter could provoke a war before the South could organize a response. It was also necessary to prove that the South could stand on its own, and so woo the undecided slave states into joining their cause. The six seceded states sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, where they began the process of forming a government with signal urgency. Within the month, the Confederate States of America had been founded, its Constitution had been ratified, and Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as President. The South was far from unanimous in its support for secession. While many state conventions presented overwhelming majorities for independence, the opponents were often browbeaten into going along. Votes were manipulated, pro-Union voters were intimidated into staying home, and in many cases opponents of secession were jailed or physically assaulted. Even these efforts did not intimidate many regions with strong pro-Union populations. Northern Texas was placed under martial law. West Virginia managed to declare itself independent and rejoin the United States. Even in northern Alabama, Winston County was the center of a pro-Union movement that considered secession as the state of Nickajack. Thousands of Southerners went north to enlist in the Union army, and thousands more simply did their best to ignore the war altogether. The American Civil War The secession crisis descended into war on April 12, 1861, when South Carolina forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. After the fort’s surrender, President Lincoln declared the South to be in a state of insurrection and called up 75,000 troops. The declaration forced the remaining southern states to choose sides—over the next month, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina declared their independence. Shortly after Virginia joined the Confederacy, the new government voted to relocate to Richmond—the city was a strong industrial center, and close to the anticipated routes of Northern invasion. The war began poorly for the Confederacy. While Confederate forces repulsed federal attacks into Virginia, the war in the west was a failure. Kentucky, which had flirted with secession, fell into the federal camp after General Leonidas Polk moved Confederate troops into the state in violation of its declared neutrality. Attempts to seize Missouri and New Mexico failed. By early 1862, federal troops had taken most of Tennessee and controlled important rivers. New Orleans was occupied, and West Virginia seceded from Virginia to rejoin the Union. As the war spread, the South’s slaves began to test the limits of control. With white men gone on military duty, and many planters financially pressed to provide food and other necessities, the slaves resorted to foraging and theft, neglecting the duties assigned to them in favor of procuring the means of survival. The discipline of slavery began to disintegrate, especially as refugee planters brought their slaves with them into unoccupied areas. Where they could, most slaves barely hesitated to flee to the Union armies.

165

166

SOUTH, THE

At the opening of the campaign season of 1862, dissension was rife within the Confederate government and the economy was on shaky ground. Worst of all, a federal army of 100,000 was assembling in Virginia, with only 10,000 Confederate troops between them and Richmond. In a stunning reversal, the Army of Northern Virginia repulsed this army, and then invaded Maryland and Kentucky. In large part, this resurgence was due to the genius of Robert E. Lee, who took command of the Army of Northern Virginia in the summer of 1862. In September, Lee’s army was forced to retreat after the Battle of Antietam. In the aftermath of the battle, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all slaves in the Confederacy free. This action redefined the war for many on both sides. In the North, the abolitionists hailed the act and Lincoln consolidated his Republican base before the critical 1862 elections. In the South, the news increased the determination of the slaves to throw off their yoke. As the war progressed, the Confederacy shed many of the old South’s ways. Under the pressure of American military and economic power, the South made impressive progress towards industrialization. Ironically, the war shaped Confederate policies in ways that the pre-war secessionists could not have predicted. The Confederacy instituted national conscription and seized private property (including slaves) for military use, acts which contributed to the continuing morale problem. In addition, the Confederacy suspended habeas corpus, placed much of its border regions under martial law, and instituted an income tax and tough economic controls. A nation purportedly declared in defense of property rights and individual rights had become subordinated to the Civil War’s brutal demand for men and treasure. The tough measures helped to keep the Confederacy afloat, but its survival depended more on the skill and bravery of its armies and generals. Just as the war shattered Southern conceptions of politics, so too did it cause an upheaval in society. The old aristocracy lost much of its power, as war brought skilled men to the fore with less regard for their pedigree. The shortage of skilled workers, the defection of slaves, and the need to replace cotton, which could not be exported, with foodstuffs gave an extraordinary degree of power to poor Southern whites and to women. The South suffered several grievous defeats in 1863. At Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, Robert E. Lee was forced to abandon the offensive and return to Confederate soil. In the West, General U.S. Grant seized the city of Vicksburg and took control of the Mississippi, cutting the Confederacy in two. In Europe, France and Britain openly rejected the possibility of recognizing the Confederacy. In November, the Confederate Army of the Tennessee was all but shattered in brutal fighting near Chattanooga. 1864 sealed the Confederacy’s fate. U.S. Grant held Robert E. Lee in check in Virginia, pinning down the Army of Northern Virginia in a grueling battle of attrition. Meanwhile, General William T. Sherman pushed out of Tennessee, seizing Atlanta in September. Federal numbers were swelled by black soldiers. By war’s end, nearly 200,000 black men fought in federal uniform, earning the respect of soldiers on both sides. The war grew increasingly vicious. On several occasions, Southern troops massacred black prisoners. The federal army,

SOUTH, THE

anxious to speed the South’s economic collapse and demonstrate its own invincibility, began systematically destroying everything of value in its path. Many Southern cities, from Atlanta to Charleston, would eventually be put to the torch. The Confederacy was crumbling. The justice system was overwhelmed by thousands of military deserters, who took to pillage and controlled large rural areas. The economy was on the verge of total collapse, as the currency fell victim to hyperinflation, railroads ceased to operate, and occupation and pillage denied resources to the Confederacy. In November of 1864, President Davis asked the Confederate Congress to purchase 40,000 slaves, who would be enlisted in the Confederate Army and then granted their freedom after the war. The act, which would have allowed the Confederacy to tap its last reserve of manpower, was roundly rejected by the Congress. They correctly saw that beginning a program of emancipation would acknowledge that slavery was not only doomed, but unjust. Accepting emancipation would show the entire war to have been immoral, and that was something they were not yet ready to face. By early 1865, the Confederates were out of choices. The first black Confederate soldiers were enlisted in late March. A week later, Richmond was evacuated. On April 9, General Lee surrendered his army. President Davis, even in flight, urged the South to continue fighting. Despite a few scattered partisan actions, however, the South was ready to give up. On May 10, Davis was captured in rural Georgia. The last Confederate army surrendered to Union forces at Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865. The South Since 1865 In the wake of the Confederacy’s surrender, there was a brief period of optimism, as many on both sides hoped to rebuild the nation. However, a number of things ended this respite. President Lincoln’s assassination shocked the North, and hardened feelings. At the same time, the Southern states elected conservative governments which were reluctant at best to comply with Northern demands, especially those dealing with the liberated slaves. Frustration with the standoff led Congress to impeach President Andrew Johnson, and then to install military governments throughout the South. This Reconstruction period saw remarkable accomplishments and strife throughout the South. Constitutional amendments ended slavery and granted full citizenship to African Americans. Liberated slaves were catapulted into political power, as they gained the vote and pro-Southern voters boycotted the elections. The events of Reconstruction did as much as the Civil War to reinforce a distinct Southern identity. Many white southerners bitterly resented the Republican governments of the Reconstruction period, and a number resorted to terrorism to oppose them. The Ku Klux Klan and other organized groups beat and killed many African-Americans who dared to assert their rights. Republican politicians, white and black, were targeted for assassination by the Klan. In 1868 alone, over a thousand people were murdered by the Klan and countless others assaulted or harassed. After President Rutherford Hayes ended Reconstruction in return for Southern political support in 1877, the Republican governments collapsed. They were defeated in elections which were

167

168

SOUTH, THE

often pageants of fraud and terrorism, as the Klan mobilized a final supreme effort to stifle the black vote. In Louisiana, an armed militia forced the Republican governor to resign and certify the election of a Democratic government. In the wake of Reconstruction, solidly conservative Democratic governments came to power throughout the South and instituted a series of highly oppressive laws, known as ‘‘Jim Crow’’ laws, to end the political influence of AfricanAmericans and to segregate them from white society. Millions of southern blacks emigrated north over the next few decades, drawn to the freer social climate and greater economic opportunity. Until the Second World War, the South remained economically underdeveloped and largely agricultural. After the war, economic growth skyrocketed throughout the region, spurred by factories seeking cheaper labor and the development of modern infrastructure. This change was overshadowed for decades by a huge upheaval in Southern society—the civil rights movement and the end of legal segregation. Differences between Southern and Northern politicians over the Jim Crow system first exploded in 1948. Southern politicians, still Democratic nearly to a man, were furious when the Democratic President Harry Truman ordered segregation ended within the armed forces. At the Democratic convention that year, Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey urged the party to include the end of segregation in its platform, a move which Truman endorsed. Infuriated, a number of Southern politicians bolted the party to form the short-lived States’ Rights Party or ‘‘Dixiecrats,’’ who nominated South Carolina’s governor Strom Thurmond as its candidate. Despite victories for Thurmond in four southern states, Truman was able to win reelection. As the civil rights movement gained support and victories over the next 20 years, many Southern whites fiercely resisted the changes. The resurrected Ku Klux Klan initiated a new campaign of terror. Politicians did everything possible to delay or block the reforms. The most memorable instance of this opposition occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas, when the state government refused to allow the desegregation of public schools in 1956. President Eisenhower was forced to mobilize federal troops to enforce the desegregation. Another tense confrontation came at Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962. When a black student attempted to enter the University of Mississippi, an armed mob gathered. Federal paratroopers were rushed to the city, and spent an entire night under siege. Gunmen rushed to Oxford from across the South, hoping to take part in a final confrontation over segregation. The farce ended when President Kennedy sent in the National Guard and placed Oxford under martial law. The upheaval of the civil rights movement changed politics in the South. The identification of civil rights with the Democratic Party angered many Southerners. Within a generation, the solidly Democratic white South shifted its allegiance to the Republican Party. This new political alignment has helped to encourage a Southern cultural identity. It has also, ironically, helped to discourage the region’s latent separatism. The influence of the South on national politics and the national discourse has increased the attractiveness of American patriotism in the region. The

SOUTH CAROLINA

boom in Southern economic power has acted similarly, by both bolstering Southern confidence and influence while tying it into the larger national and world economies. A few activists and smaller radical groups still urge the South to regain its independence, but the likelihood of success is miniscule at best. The South has an influence in American life—politically, economically, and socially—that it has not had since the early days of the republic. Further Reading Bennett, Lerone, Jr. Black Power U.S.A.: The Human Side of Reconstruction 18671877. Chicago: Johnson Publishing, 1967. Catton, Bruce. The Coming Fury. London: Phoenix Press, 2001. Davis, William C. Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America. New York: The Free Press, 2002. Fehrenbacher, Don E. The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government’s Relations to Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Foner, Eric. A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. New York: Harper and Row, 1990. Hesseltine, William B. A History of the South, 1607-1936. New York: PrenticeHall, 1936. Johnson, Michael. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1999. Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1979.

South Alaska—see Alaska. South Carolina. Geography and Early History South Carolina is one of the smallest of the United States, at 31,000 square miles. It sits between the Atlantic Ocean and the Blue Ridge portion of the Appalachian Mountains. The land is mostly flat and fertile, although the western portion of the state is a plateau known as the Piedmont. The coast is 187 miles from north to south, but a maze of inlets and bays extends the total coastline to nearly 3,000 miles. The climate is subtropical and humid. While the first Spanish explorers cruised along South Carolina’s coast in 1514, it was not until 1562 when the first European settlers arrived. A small group of French Protestants under Jean Ribaut settled on Parris Island, but the settlement collapsed into starvation and cannibalism before the survivors were rescued by an English ship. The Spanish built a fort on the remains of the French settlement in 1566, but this fort, named Santa Elena, never thrived. The Spanish withdrew to the south in 1587, worn down by constant Indian attacks and the threat of English piracy. The next colonial attempt had better luck. In 1670, the English established a colony at Albemarle Point. The plantation economy of Virginia was established in a different form in South Carolina. The earliest export crop was rice, which required intensive labor to produce. As a result, slavery was quick to take hold

169

170

SOUTH CAROLINA

in South Carolina, and the slaveowners adopted the harsh methods developed in the sugar plantations of the Caribbean to maintain discipline. The colonists of South Carolina were able to establish themselves fairly quickly against Native American opposition. A major cultural fault line ran through the state, between the Muskogee in the southwest and a variety of Siouan tribes in the northeast. The English were quick to encourage war amongst the Indians in order to maintain the upper hand. They also exploited a growing dependence on European trade goods to extend their control. In the early eighteenth century, the Yamasee tribe was forced to give up a number of their members as slaves to satisfy part of their growing trade debt. The Yamasee responded by organizing an alliance of neighboring tribes. In 1715, they attacked the colony, slaughtering hundreds. The South Carolinians, forced into exile in North Carolina and Virginia, only survived by striking a deal with the Cherokees and Muskogee, who were alarmed by the sudden emergence of the Yamasee as a regional power. Within a few years, the Yamasee had been virtually destroyed by the English-Cherokee-Muskogee alliance and eventually became part of the Seminole nation in Florida. From Colony to State The Yamasee War ended South Carolina’s proprietorship. The colony was run as a joint stock company in theory, although in practice the proprietors had been completely unable to balance the competing interests of South Carolina’s wealthy plantation owners and its poor white settlers, maintain peace among its divided Protestant factions, and at the same time guard against increasingly hostile Indians and a slave population that outnumbered the whites in many parts of the state. After the disaster of the Yamasee War, the settlers revolted and took control of the government. The British government chose to recognize the coup d’etat, and established direct rule over South Carolina. Until the French and Indian War of 1754-1763, royal control was loosely exercised. South Carolina was left alone to develop a curiously unique identity, focused on the internal squabbles of its wealthy aristocracy and the growing fear of slave revolt, especially after an Angolan slave named Stono led a 1739 rebellion that ended with 100 dead, both black and white. After the rebellion, restrictions on slaves were tightened and the cycle of repression and fear deepened. The war’s end brought a series of taxes and repressive measures, often called the Intolerable Acts. South Carolina’s aristocracy had prospered over the last few years, to the point where Charleston boasted some of the nation’s greatest fortunes. The aristocracy, hoping to preserve its accustomed independence and to increase its power without the dead hand of British interference, was quick to embrace the Revolution. Residents of the back country, who were more concerned with frontier defenses than the price of tea, were considerably less enthusiastic. The Revolution in South Carolina created a state of civil war in the interior, as rural inhabitants joined with British forces. The Americans, short of gunpowder, seized supplies meant for the Cherokees and other tribes. This was the least of many provocations, and the Cherokees fought a bitter war against

SOUTH CAROLINA

the Americans until their defeat in 1777. After the British failed to quickly end the war by occupying the north, a southern campaign was begun in 1778. By 1780, South Carolina’s cities were occupied by British regulars. A grueling guerrilla campaign began, but the Americans did not succeed in driving the British out of the port towns before the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolution. After the Revolution, South Carolina’s politics were as rancorous as ever. The huge debts of the war years provided a spur to many arguments, and the ideas of the revolution and the new Constitution provoked demonstrations by the state’s small landowners, who resented high property requirements for voting and other measures that preserved the power of the aristocracy. The growing population of the interior led to a series of compromises, but significant progress towards greater equality for white males was not made until 1808. The Nullification Crisis The war’s end brought a boom in agricultural exports. The invention of the cotton gin and the subsequent explosion in cotton production increased the state’s dependence on exports, and slavery. Charleston, the capital and main port of South Carolina, became one of the richest cities in the nation. The reliance on exports meant that South Carolina, along with most of the other Southern states, firmly supported the War of 1812 and the resumption of unfettered trade. It also meant that the state jealously resisted any attempt to pass tariffs on its exported cotton. By the 1820s, this resistance reached a fever pitch. In 1828, an explosive document was published by the South Carolina Exposition. Written secretly by Vice President Henry Calhoun, a South Carolina native, it argued that the states had not surrendered any sovereignty to the federal government by ratifying the Constitution. It further laid out that the South, since it provided three-quarters of American exports, would not long tolerate having to shoulder the burden of funding the federal government. Calhoun asserted that since the states were sovereign entities, they reserved the right to nullify those federal laws that they disagreed with. In 1830, Calhoun came out as the author and began rallying support for his doctrine of state’s rights and nullification among the Southern states. In a public confrontation, President Andrew Jackson affirmed his support for the federal position. With the Democratic Party thus split between pro-Jackson and pro-Calhoun factions, Henry Clay of the National Republican Party pressed the issue, hoping to gain the Presidency in 1832. He sponsored a bill passing a new tariff, and put the President into the impossible situation of signing it and alienating his Democratic base or vetoing it and backing down from his previous position. Jackson signed the tariff into law. Jackson won a massive electoral victory in the 1832 election. The South might have had differences with Jackson, but they reviled Clay. The victory was enough to destroy the National Republicans, who joined with the AntiMasonic Party in the new Whig Party. Meanwhile, the election in South Carolina was a landslide for supporters of nullification. The new state legislature, with the full support of Governor James Hamilton, declared the tariffs null and void. They forbade federal officers within the state from enforcing the

171

172

SOUTH CAROLINA

tariff, and further declared that no appeal to state or federal courts would be binding. The legislature then took the threatening step of mobilizing the state militia. President Jackson sent troops into South Carolina, and declared that nullification was unconstitutional. South Carolina canvassed support from the other Southern states and found little. Jackson was vastly popular throughout most of the South. While the crisis mounted, cooler heads in Congress proposed a compromise. Clay and Calhoun agreed to reduce the tariff, and also introduced a bill authorizing the President to enforce federal law using the army. South Carolina nullified this Force Act as well, but the crisis passed. The showdown set the stage for the Civil War. The doctrine of states’ rights was developed into the form which the South would embrace before its secession, while Jackson’s conception of a strong federal government was adopted by the North as its dominance grew. While many of these ideas had been debated for decades, and New England leaders had expressed similar views at the 1814 Hartford Convention, they had never been expressed as clearly and forcefully before Calhoun. Secession As the nation continued to grow over the next few decades, the South lost influence. The new states in the West were largely antislavery, and the old balance between slave and free states began to break down. By 1850, the addition of California and Oregon made the future clear. The Compromise of 1850, which admitted California as a free state in return for a strengthened Fugitive Slave Law, was the last major concession the slave states would gain. The KansasNebraska Act was passed over Southern objections, pro-slavery forces in Kansas were soundly defeated, and the fallout helped to destroy the Whigs and provoke the formation of the Republican Party. Moderation gave way to inflexible defiance on both sides of the slavery debate, and tensions were aggravated by the South’s continuing loss of relative economic as well as political power. In 1859, South Carolinian lawyer Thomas Memminger visited Virginia and urged the General Assembly to join South Carolina in calling for a convention of southern states. He was politely turned away. The 1860 election proved to be the flash point. A number of ‘‘fire-eaters,’’ as the diehard secessionists were known, demanded that the South go its own way. The fire-eaters managed to engineer the split of the Democratic Party in 1860, standing on their pro-slavery and state’s rights principles even though it guaranteed the victory of the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln. By October of 1860, the outcome of the election was starkly clear. South Carolina’s Governor William Gist sent letters to the governors of other southern states, asking them to join him in seceding. The other governors responded hesitantly—they knew that a majority of the people were still against secession. Many declared, however, that they would secede if joined by other states. When the election results indeed showed that Lincoln had won, Governor Gist acted quickly. The legislature called for a convention to meet on December 17. On December 20, the convention voted unanimously for secession and South Carolina became an independent nation.

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina had every expectation that other states would follow, as they in fact did. For the moment, however, it had to prepare for the worst. The state called up its militia, a number of men that technically outnumbered the entire U.S. military. It also demanded the withdrawal of soldiers from Fort Sumter and Fort Pinckney in Charleston Harbor. By early February, six more states had joined South Carolina in secession. They sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861. Four days later, the delegates adopted a provisional Constitution and the Confederate States of America declared its independence. During the last days of James Buchanan’s Presidency and the early days of Abraham Lincoln’s, many people worked desperately to bring the Confederate states back into the Union. While these diplomatic efforts continued, the situation in South Carolina continued to deteriorate. Fort Sumter, a federal fort in Charleston Harbor, was one of the last remaining loyal outposts in the Confederacy. It was subjected to a Southern embargo, and on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops opened fire, forcing the fort’s surrender. Immediately, President Lincoln called for volunteers to suppress the Confederacy by force. The action led Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina to join the Confederacy and the Civil War began. For a discussion of the Civil War, please see the entry on the South. South Carolina Since the Civil War In the wake of the Civil War, South Carolina was placed under military government along with the rest of the Confederacy. The new Republican administration was opposed by many of South Carolina’s white citizens, especially as the state’s large black population began to vote. The Ku Klux Klan, which had launched a campaign of terrorism and assassination throughout the Confederacy, began to operate in South Carolina. The state’s aristocracy, however, was appalled by the Klan’s excesses and helped to stifle the movement. Despite this action, South Carolina’s leaders were no more enthusiastic than the Klan about Republican government. In 1876, both the Republican and Democratic parties claimed victory in the state elections. While the Democrats had more votes, evidence soon emerged of intimidation and egregious voter fraud. Therefore, both parties formed governments. For a short while, the Republican and Democratic state assemblies both operated from the State House, their Speakers sharing a desk. The dispute was not settled until April of 1877, when the newly inaugurated President Rutherford B. Hayes ended Reconstruction. The Republican state government simply dissolved. Since that time, there have been several half-hearted attempts to revive secessionism. While the state has long been prickly about its sense of independence, these efforts have gained little traction. In fact, South Carolina’s latest secessionist movement is not of native origin. In November of 2003, a group of avowed fundamentalist Christians from California organized the group ‘‘Christian Exodus,’’ which calls on fellow fundamentalists to move to South Carolina. The group’s plan is to command enough votes to take control of the state government, and then secede if they deem it necessary to govern according to

173

174

SOUTH JERSEY

their ideals. As of this writing, the group has persuaded a mere handful of families to move to South Carolina—perhaps this is unsurprising, as none of the founders have moved themselves as of this writing. Further Reading Catton, Bruce. The Coming Fury. London: Phoenix Press, 2001. Christian Exodus. ‘‘Christian Exodus.’’ http://www.christianexodus.org Davis, William C. Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America. New York: The Free Press, 2002. Hesseltine, William B. A History of the South, 1607-1936. New York: PrenticeHall, 1936. Jarvie, Jenny. ‘‘Strategizing a Christian Coup d’Etat.’’ Los Angeles Times, August 28, 2005. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. The Age of Jackson. Old Saybrook, CT: Konecky and Konecky, 1971. South Carolina Department of Archives and History. ‘‘A Brief History of South Carolina.’’ http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/homepage.htm Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1979. Wallace, David Duncan. South Carolina: A Brief History, 1520-1948. Charleston, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1961.

South Jersey. Many regions throughout the United States have long felt ignored by their state governments. The Eastern Shore of Maryland resents the power of Baltimore and the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Southern Oregon and northern California have attempted more than once to separate from their respective states, most notably during the 1941 Jefferson secession attempt. Another of these regions is southern New Jersey. The southern half of New Jersey has long felt different from the north. The residents tend to vote more conservatively, and the area’s economy is not centered on New York as that of the northern half is. In 1964, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislative districts were not fairly apportioned. As a result, southern New Jersey lost a large amount of political power. This was followed by a series of fresh irritations, including new budget caps and conservation measures which threatened some landowners in southern New Jersey. The growing resentment found expression when Albert Freeman, a smalltown newspaper editor, wrote an editorial calling for secession. Freeman meant the proposal as a joke, but the idea took on a life of its own. On April 23, 1980, the town council of Egg Harbor voted to secede and to support the creation of the new state of South Jersey. The publicity attracted other towns. Within a few weeks, 40 more towns approved similar resolutions. Petitions demanding a referendum on secession gathered thousands of signatures, although New Jersey’s state government declined to approve the referendum. The statehood movement, despite the earnestness of its leadership, was unable to mobilize a large base. On Election Day of 1980, the secession movement’s leaders organized an unofficial referendum throughout the south. 51 percent of voters approved of

SOUTH NEBRASKA

secession, although Salem, Cape May, and Cumberland Counties had much larger margins of victory. The turnout was light, and the results made it clear that the idea did not have enough support to face down the heavy opposition a secession attempt would face. Today, a number of people still advocate separation for South Jersey, but not as an organized movement. Further Reading Associated Press. ‘‘Secession Leader Tells Trenton to Take Note.’’New York Times, November 6, 1980, section B, 11. Bernardo, Jack M. ‘‘South Jersey Secession: Two Views—Outsider Sees A Valid Complaint.’’ New York Times, October 18, 1981, section 11, 36. Scham Lutto, Rebecca. ‘‘South Jersey Secession: Two Views- An Unfunny Power Play.’’ New York Times, October 18, 1981, section 11, 36. Steinreich, Stanley. ‘‘The South Rises Again—And Says It’s Serious,’’ New York Times, June 15, 1980, section 11, 2.

South Nebraska. Nebraska Territory was politically dominated by the city of Omaha, largely through an accident of fate. After the creation of Nebraska Territory, the territorial governor appointed by Franklin Pierce died of illness while traveling there in 1854. The territory’s secretary, Thomas R. Cuming, became Acting Governor. Cuming was politically allied with a group of businessmen from Council Bluffs, Iowa. These businessmen had founded the city of Omaha, hoping that a sister city across the Missouri River would tempt any future railroad to the west to choose a route through Council Bluffs. They had secured Cuming’s appointment to promote Omaha and their own interests, and he did not disappoint them. Upon taking office, Cuming ordered a census. It showed that two-thirds of the population, roughly 2,000 settlers, lived south of the Platte River. Cuming proceeded to give the northern counties a majority of seats in the territorial legislature anyway, and declared Omaha the territorial capital in December of 1854. The residents of southern Nebraska were understandably outraged. The Platte River was wide and shallow, making navigation difficult. The sandy bottom made it equally difficult to pole across or ford the river on foot. Finally, bridges were far too expensive for the territory to afford. The river was a formidable obstacle, and Cuming’s actions encouraged southern Nebraskans to think of it as a dividing line between Omaha’s Nebraska and their own. In 1856, Nebraskans south of the Platte signed a petition asking Congress to annex their region to the Territory of Kansas. Congress refused to consider the request. At the time, the political situation in Kansas was extremely fragile, as pro-slavery and antislavery factions battled for control of the territorial government. Congress rightly feared that adding the settlers south of the Platte to the mix would cause the situation to deteriorate into outright civil war, as it in fact did over the course of the next year. While the southern Nebraskans waited for this decision, they sent delegates to Kansas’s antislavery

175

176

SUPERIOR

constitutional convention at Wyandot. At first, the Kansans were delighted to accept the Nebraskans’ offer, but their enthusiasm waned as the political consequences became apparent. In any case, the antislavery faction had enough adherents to overcome Kansas’s pro-slavery faction without the extreme action of adding half of Nebraska to their cause. While the move to secede from Omaha failed, tension between the capital and the south did not recede. In 1859, relations between Nebraska’s north and south exploded in a brawl at the territorial legislature where several representatives brandished guns. In the aftermath of the fight, the southern representatives withdrew, holding a rump session at Florence in the south. The outbreak of the Civil War made these political arguments seem petty, and served to unify Nebraska. The war and its aftermath reshaped Nebraska in a more permanent way as well. Freed of opposition by Southern representatives, the Republican Congress of the 1860s passed the Homestead Act, which brought a wave of new settlers to the west. The U.S. Army was able to vastly increase its presence on the Great Plains after the war. In 1867, the transcontinental railroad was completed, with its eastern terminus at Omaha. The railroad and the new settlers ensured Omaha’s economic dominance of Nebraska. With the city’s future set, Omaha’s political fathers were in a mood to compromise and prevent further unrest. After Congress granted statehood to Nebraska in 1867, one of the state legislature’s first acts was to establish a new state capital south of the Platte River, which became the city of Lincoln in 1868. This open compromise was matched by a number of backroom deals, which became apparent after the costs of constructing Lincoln grew mystifyingly high. Eventually, Nebraska’s first governor would be impeached and convicted for misappropriating funds. Despite the scandal, Nebraska’s Republican Party maintained control of the state for decades, and the conflict between Nebraska’s north and south ebbed. Further Reading Luebke, Frederick C. Nebraska: An Illustrated History. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. Olson, James C. and Ronald C. Naugle. History of Nebraska: Third Edition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

Superior. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is separated from the rest of the state by Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. From the earliest days of settlement, the Upper Peninsula has felt ignored and actively snubbed by Michigan’s state government. In the days of territorial government, when Michigan Territory also included Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, residents of the Upper Peninsula were active in attempts to separate the western territories as the new Territory of Huron. In 1836, when Michigan was granted statehood, the Upper Peninsula was added to the state as compensation for the Toledo Strip, a swath of disputed land that was awarded to Ohio. At the time, the trade seemed like a raw deal to many on both ends. The Michigan legislature went so far as to pass a resolution calling the Upper Peninsula ‘‘a sterile region...destined by soil and climate to

SUPERIOR

remain forever a wilderness.’’ The Upper Peninsula’s leaders were quick to return the sentiment. This estrangement was aggravated when a number of Scandinavian immigrants entered the Upper Peninsula in the nineteenth century. As a result, the Upper Peninsula has much more in common with the rural residents of the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin than with heavily urban and industrial southern Michigan. In the nineteenth century, lumber and mining provided a steady stream of income. After the First World War, however, the Upper Peninsula suffered the beginning of a long economic decline. The best timber stands and ore veins were exhausted. The region’s population has remained static for decades, and less than a third of the 300,000 residents live in towns of more than 4,000. These issues of economic stagnation and distinct identity have led to several calls for independence, most under the flattering name of ‘‘Superior.’’ Some activists have called for full independence, although most simply want secession from Michigan. The statehood movement reached its peak in the 1970s. In 1975, a referendum on secession was placed on the ballot in two major towns, where it failed. In 1978, state legislator Dominic Jacobetti introduced a bill to grant independence to the Upper Peninsula. This bill failed when the committee considering it refused to submit the bill to the full House for a vote. Since these failed attempts, the secession movement has been largely dormant. The occasional petition is circulated, but by and large most Upper Peninsula residents are content simply to be left alone. Further Reading Carter, James L. Superior: A State for the North Country. Marquette, MI: Pilot Press, 1980. Elsener, James. ‘‘Michigan U.P. makes noises for statehood.’’ Chicago Tribune. March 13, 1975.

177

T Taluga—see Atlantis, Isle of Gold. Texas. Background and Geography Texas is the largest of the continental United States, with an area of over 260,000 square miles. The state’s size is matched by its geographic diversity. In the east, the land is comprised of swamps and forests, much like neighboring Louisiana. The Gulf Coast is subtropical and humid. The interior of the state is largely prairie, which grows increasingly arid to the west. Before the widespread use of irrigation, much of the state was unsuitable for intensive agriculture, but the prairies of the state supported a large population of bison (and later, wild horses). As a borderland between empires, Texas has a long history of political intrigue. Before the successful War of Independence in 1836, there were three declarations of independence and countless plots and filibustering attempts. The remarkable fact is not that Texas gained its independence, but that it took as long as it did. History to 1810 The recorded history of Texas begins with Spanish explorers, who first mapped the coast in 1520. The region’s climate was unforgiving compared to that of Mexico, and the Spanish were too focused on extracting precious metals there to be bothered with the vast prairies to their north. For decades, the region was virtually unexplored. This changed quickly in 1685, when word arrived in Mexico that the French explorer la Salle had established a colony at Matagorda Bay. La Salle’s colony did not last long—his men mutinied and killed him, and were killed in turn by hostile Native Americans. While the French presence in Texas was transitory, it still represented a threat to Spanish honor and to the wealth of Mexico’s mines. Spain responded quickly, sending out explorers to map Texas. A chain of military posts and Catholic missions was established along a road from the Rio Grande to Nacogdoches in the east of Texas. The road became known as El Camino Real—the Royal Road. A more ominous threat arrived in the 1700s. The Spanish settlements in Texas had long been plagued by the Apaches. The Spanish were delighted to learn that a new tribe had arrived and was viciously attacking the Apaches—

180

TEXAS

the Comanches. The Comanches were an offshoot of the Shoshone tribe of the western Rockies. They were tough and brutally effective warriors, nomads who were dependent on their horses to hunt the region’s buffalo herds. The spread of horses among the Plains tribes created a vicious circle of warfare. Maintaining a herd of horses required a large territory; a large territory required more horses to maintain control. The Comanches were toughened by this constant struggle. Within a few decades of their arrival in Texas, they had driven the Spanish south until the Camino Real became the effective border of settlement. The Comanche expansion was fuelled by American trading posts. The Comanches were able to bring them a wealth of buffalo hides. The Americans in turn gave the Comanches trade goods and the guns they needed to hunt— and fight. The Americans also traded with the Spanish, selling them horses acquired from the Comanches in return for gold. One of these traders, Philip Nolan, was more than a businessman. He was also an American agent who reported directly to the commander of U.S. military forces in the West—James Wilkinson, one of the most accomplished plotters in American history. Wilkinson was himself an agent who secretly passed information to Spain, and had masterminded an attempt to bring an independent Kentucky under Spanish rule. In 1800, Nolan established a fort near Nacogdoches. He was killed in a fight with Spanish troops in 1801. It is impossible to know his motivations, and whether he was secretly acting under Wilkinson’s orders as an American officer. Of course, Wilkinson could just as easily have betrayed Nolan to the Spanish. Given Wilkinson’s record, it is entirely possible that both are true. At the time, the future of Texas was in doubt. Spain had been conquered by France, thanks to the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1800, Spain secretly agreed to return the territory of Louisiana to France, which had held the region until 1762. The following year, the United States government discovered the transfer and sent agents to negotiate access to the port of New Orleans. Instead, Napoleon offered to sell the entirety of Louisiana to the United States. In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty was signed. The Louisiana Purchase was alarming to the Spanish. The border between Louisiana and New Spain (which would become Mexico) was poorly defined. The Americans immediately pressed the full extent of their claims, which in the most generous interpretations included all of Texas. They had already ousted the Spanish from West Florida and were now pressing on East Florida. The Spanish responded by sending additional troops into Texas, increasing the army’s number there from less than two thousand to over six thousand in 1806. An event which helped to provoke this increase occurred in 1804, when former U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr raised a private militia and began constructing river vessels. His aims are still far from clear. Some argue that he intended to carve an independent state out of Louisiana and the Spanish dominions in Mexico and the American Southwest. Others have claimed that Burr was acting as an agent of the American government. His main accomplice was General James Wilkinson, a Spanish agent who had attempted to make Kentucky the center of a new Spanish dominion a few years earlier. Wilkinson

TEXAS

eventually betrayed Burr to the American government. Another ally was the fiercely patriotic war hero Andrew Jackson, who later insisted that Burr hinted at secret official backing. Burr was tried for treason, but acquitted by his political allies on the Supreme Court. Of course, it could be argued that if President Jefferson had secretly agreed to Burr’s action, he would expect the Supreme Court to oppose him. It has also been suggested that Wilkinson, an opportunist before all else, was acting as a double agent against Spanish interests. The truth may never be known for certain. The First Republic of Texas The French conquest of Spain and the installation of a French puppet on the Spanish throne marked the effective end of the Spanish Empire. Revolts broke out across Latin America. Resentment against oppressive and corrupt Spanish government had long boiled in the colonies, and the paralysis resulting from the Napoleonic Wars proved to be the tipping point. Central and South America erupted into a decade of chaos. In 1810, the revolutionary movement came to Mexico when Father Miguel Hidalgo launched a protest against the Spanish government which became a rebellion. This state of affairs fired the imaginations of idealists and of ruthless politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. The United States was extremely interested in the vulnerability of Spain’s colonies. Texas was one of the closest and most attractive targets. In 1811, the creoles (persons born in the Americas of fully Spanish descent) of San Antonio ousted the Spanish governor and declared for Mexico. Their new government did not last long, and the Spanish re-established control. The new governor of Texas ordered the U.S. border closed and moved troops forward to enforce the order. His action was not enough to stop Jose´ Gutie´rrez, a former blacksmith who held a commission in Hidalgo’s army. In August of 1811, Gutie´rrez arrived in Louisiana and began rallying support for an expedition. His proposal was sent up the chain of command, and by the year’s end he had gained a meeting with President James Monroe. The United States was preparing for war with Britain at the time, and Monroe was anxious that Spanish territories might be used as staging points for British attacks, or even that Spain might join Great Britain in war against the United States. The federal government agreed to support Gutie´rrez, and sent him back to Louisiana with an agent named Captain William Shaler, who assisted Gutie´rrez in recruitment and training and reported assiduously back to Washington on every move the young officer made. Even as the United States covertly backed Gutie´rrez, it sent diplomatic missions to the Spanish authorities, assuring them that the United States would do everything in its power to stop Gutie´rrez from invading Mexico. In June of 1812, Gutie´rrez’s forces were joined by Augustus Magee, who resigned his commission in the U.S. Army to serve with the expedition, but still remained close to Captain Shaler. With American arms and supplies, and an army of 3,000 Mexicans and American freebooters behind him, Gutie´ rrez crossed into Mexico on August 12, 1812. The army quickly seized Nacogdoches, along the Neutral Ground inside Texas. Spanish soldiers deserted to him and surrendered the town, and the booty from Nacogdoches was enough for him to pay his entire army. Without firing a shot, Gutie´rrez was able to send

181

182

TEXAS

a force under Magee to capture La Bahia, halfway to the Rio Grande from the Louisiana border. A few days later, Spanish royalists attacked La Bahia and launched a siege which would ultimately last four months. The Spanish were unable to dislodge the revolutionaries, and were hampered by Comanche raiding parties, but morale inside La Bahia’s fort plummeted when Magee died suddenly in February of 1813. Command of the army was assumed by Samuel Kemper, who had fought the Spanish for years in West Florida. The Spanish lifted the siege, and Kemper immediately ordered an assault on the nearby town of San Antonio. On March 2, Kemper broke the Spanish army decisively outside the city, and the Spanish surrendered four days later. Gutie´ rrez declared Texas a province of the Republic of Mexico, and beheaded the Spanish governor. Appalled, many Americans deserted him and returned to Louisiana. Free of the necessity of placating the American troops, and of the moderating influence of Shaler and Magee, Gutie´rrez declared Texas an independent republic on April 6, 1813. The new constitution put control of the entire government in his hands, but at the same time doomed it. The Americans were angered by what they saw as Gutie´rrez’s betrayal, and the government began scheming to replace Gutie´rrez with a more pliable agent. American soldiers that remained in his army distrusted Gutie´rrez and his new recruits, who lacked discipline. Most of his remaining American soldiers deserted. Without the seasoned American leaders, Gutie´rrez proved unable to improve his army’s increasingly ramshackle condition. At the same time, the declaration of independence brought down the wrath of the Spanish, who sent 1,500 soldiers to crush the rebellion. By June, many of the remaining Americans had deserted. Gutie´rrez managed to defeat the royalist invasion in June of 1813, but this was his last victory. Shaler sent agents to force Gutie´rrez to relinquish control to his fellow exile, Don Jose´ Toledo. Gutie´rrez left San Antonio the next day, heading for Louisiana. When Toledo’s army met the Spanish in battle on August 18th, it was demoralized and in organizational chaos. It was crushed by the Spanish forces, and the Republic of Texas was ended. One of the royalist officers in the Spanish expedition was named Antonio Lo´pez de Santa Anna, whose history in Texas was far from finished. The Return of the Filibusters Various filibustering expeditions continued to form throughout the years before the Republic of Mexico finally succeeded in breaking away from the Spanish Empire in 1821. Gutie´rrez and Toledo continued to scheme in New Orleans. The formed alliances with various land speculators, and even the privateering fleets of Jean Lafitte at Barataria and Louis Aury at Galveston Island. The U.S. government winked at these plans, but Gutie´rrez was forced to cancel a planned invasion when an overzealous backer placed a newspaper advertisement for recruits. In 1816, a group of former French officers under Charles Lallemand hatched a scheme to settle French veterans of the Napoleonic Wars at the mouth of the Sabine River. Lallemand also nurtured pipe dreams of using his colony to seize Mexico, and then to free Napoleon and set up a new empire in the Americas.

TEXAS

The ‘‘Vine and Olive Colony,’’ or ‘‘Le Champ d’Asile,’’ was planted despite the best efforts of Jean Lafitte to halt it. Lafitte’s reputation was built on his privateering exploits against the Spanish —but he had a strong interest in preventing any party from dismembering the Spanish Empire and bringing the Caribbean under the rule of a stronger nation better able to resist his depredations. At the same time that he was plotting with the filibusters and cheerfully accepting payment from them, he was reporting back to the Spanish. Lallemand’s French exiles traveled by way of Galveston, and Lafitte narrowly failed in an attempt to kidnap the leaders while the group was in transit. The French colony established two forts near the mouth of the Trinity River, and was soon attacked by Spanish forces. Believing (thanks to Lafitte’s disinformation) that a larger Spanish force was on the way, Lallemand began thinking about evacuation. A hurricane was the final straw, and Lallemand moved his men to Galveston and then back to Louisiana. The last major filibustering expedition into Texas occurred in 1819, when James Long mounted an invasion. Long was a doctor and merchant, whose ambition was matched by his self-confidence. His expedition was provoked by the 1819 Adams-Onı´s Treaty. The treaty settled the Spanish-American frontier, with the United States ceding any claim to Texas in return for the cession of Florida. The treaty was met with outrage on the frontier, since it was widely believed in the West that Texas was included in the Louisiana Purchase, and Long was easily able to drum up funds and support. With a force of several hundred men, Long pushed into Texas and captured Nacogdoches. On June 23, 1819, Long declared Texas an independent republic under his presidency. Pressed by the necessity to secure more land and supplies, Long split his forces. He also attempted to gain the support of Jean Lafitte, who agreed to allow Long the use of Galveston as a port, and to commission privateers there. Lafitte promptly informed the Spanish government at Havana of Long’s movements, but he was not above making a few dollars off Long’s expedition while he waited for the Spanish reaction. At the end of September, a Spanish force moved against Long’s outposts, easily rolling back the filibuster’s conquests. Long fled back to New Orleans. Long organized a second expedition, and again attempted to gain Lafitte’s aid, unaware that Lafitte had provided valuable intelligence to Spain during his first attempt. This time, however, the United States Navy had a warship off Galveston’s coast and Lafitte could not even pretend to assist him. Long moved across the border by land and declared the formation of Texas’ third independent government on June 4, 1820, with less than 100 men at his command. The Spanish, however, thought that Long had a much more formidable army, and wasted months gathering a large force to attack him. In the meantime, Jose´ Gutie´rrez had returned to Texas as Vice President. Funds ran short, and most of Long’s army deserted him. An American who had gone a different route and acquired Spanish permission to begin a colony in the sparsely populated region, Stephen Austin, urged the Spanish governor to attack. Desperate for support, Long embraced Agustı´n Iturbide’s Plan of Iguala in early 1821, and joined his cause to that of the Republic of Mexico. By this time, he had

183

184

TEXAS

occupied Galveston (which Lafitte had abandoned after his face-off with the U.S. Navy) and sailed from there to seize the port of La Bahia. Long intended to use the town as bait to bring Spain’s officials to the bargaining table, but instead found himself trapped in La Bahia. The Spanish surrounded the town and began firing on his troops. Long’s men threw down their weapons in disgust, and Long was arrested on October 8, 1821. He was shipped to a jail cell in Mexico City, where he was later shot in April of 1822. The guard who was responsible claimed that Long was attempting to escape, but the killing remains suspicious. The Republic of Mexico And The Republic of Fredonia While Long languished in prison, Spanish rule had finally collapsed. Mexico gained its independence in September of 1821. One of the most prominent citizens of the state of Coahuila y Tejas was Stephen Austin, who now governed a large American colony. Austin was careful to maintain respect for the Mexican government, affirming his loyalty to the Republic after the collapse of Agustı´n Iturbide’s brief Mexican Empire in 1824. At the time, there were two major political factions in Mexico—the Centralists, who favored a strong central authority, and the Federalists, who wanted a looser confederation of largely independent state governments. Drawing on the American example and desirous of maintaining his control over his settlement, Austin strongly supported the Federalist Party. The new Mexican Republic was strapped for money, and Coahuila y Tejas’ state government authorized new land grants—largely to American entrepreneurs. One of these grants near the town of Nacogdoches went to two brothers, Haden and Benjamin Edwards. Arriving in mid-1825, the Edwards brothers found the process of establishing themselves difficult. The town was filled with soldiers of fortune left behind after the last decade’s filibustering expeditions. East of the town was the Neutral Ground, a strip of land outside American or Mexican jurisdiction and consequently filled with squatters. Haden Edwards was quick to demand that squatters register with him for a land title, alienating the established population. He then rigged a local election to maintain control. The squatters were not shy about expressing their outrage, and appealed to sympathetic state officials. Edwards refused to compromise, and in 1826 his land grant was cancelled. Edwards and the colonists who had emigrated with him had no intention of going quietly. In November, his supporters took over the government of Nacogdoches. Mexican troops began marching to Nacogdoches from San Antonio as soon as news reached them. Edwards was not a man for half measures. He entered negotiations with a band of Cherokees who had taken refuge in Texas from encroaching American settlers, but had become disillusioned with Mexican promises of assistance. On December 21, 1826, Edwards was proclaimed President of the Republic of Fredonia, and a red-and-white flag (symbolizing the Americans and Cherokees) was raised over Nacogdoches. This revolt alarmed Austin, who feared it would cause the Mexicans to expel his colony as well. He reaffirmed his loyalty to Mexico, and when Mexican

TEXAS

troops arrived in January at Nacogdoches, Americans from the Austin colony were beside them. Faced with this, Edwards broke and ran back to Louisiana with his supporters. The Cherokees, anxious to mend fences with the Mexican government, killed the chiefs who had signed a treaty with Edwards. Texan Relations With Mexico’s Government In the wake of the Fredonia rebellion, the Mexican government sent General Manuel de Mier y Tera´n to investigate the situation in Texas. Mier y Tera´n was alarmed by the speed and breadth of American colonization. His report was uncompromising; he called for an end to further immigration, a stronger military presence, and the establishment of Mexican colonies along the TexasLouisiana border. He was also a friend and supporter of General Santa Anna, whose political star was on the rise after he repulsed an attempted Spanish invasion at Tampico. In 1829, Mier y Tera´n was appointed as the military governor of Mexico’s northeast, including Texas. His warnings were heeded—on April 6, 1830, the Mexican congress implemented his suggestions in full and also banned the import of slaves. Austin persuaded Mier y Tera´n to exempt his colony from several of the law’s requirements. Relations between the American colonists and the Mexican government continued to deteriorate as more colonists arrived in defiance of the government ban. The tensions were ratchetted to a new level of seriousness when Santa Anna raised the banner of revolt in 1832, assuming command of the Federalist rebel movement. The Federalists quickly gained the upper hand in Texas, and the Americans were eager to assist them in overthrowing the ruling Centralists. In despair, Mier y Tera´n committed suicide. In January of 1833, the Centralist government collapsed. The Americans rapidly pressed their advantage. In April of 1833, the American colonists held a convention and voted to ask the new Federalist government for statehood. They were encouraged when the Federalists repealed the ban on American immigration. Austin led a delegation which traveled to Mexico City. He also secretly sent a letter to the town council of San Antonio urging them to join the statehood movement. San Antonio’s leaders were uneasy over the growing American presence, and feared they would be overwhelmed if Texas was separated from Coahuila. They sent the letter on to Mexico City and did everything they could to stoke the fears of the central government, which needed little encouragement. In January of 1834, Austin was arrested and kept in jail for three months. The Federalist landslide continued when Santa Anna was elected President in March of 1834. Frustration with Congress was high—the Federalists were unable to accomplish much of anything, and their anti-clerical laws had eroded most of their popular support. Santa Anna watched this display of haplessness with glee, and forced Congress to adjourn in April. The Federalist leaders protested, but Santa Anna won the fight for popular opinion. He repealed the anti-clerical laws by decree in late May and called for a new constitution. Santa Anna was now a dictator. His consolidation of power made many Texan settlers uneasy, and tensions rose between the Mexican government and the American settlers. In Austin’s absence, new and less conciliatory leaders were gaining power in the American

185

186

TEXAS

expatriate community. Among them were James Bowie, a former confederate of Jean Lafitte at Galveston, former U.S. Congressman Davy Crockett, and former Tennessee Governor Samuel Houston. Houston was easily the most formidable of the new leaders. He was a hero of fighting against the Creeks in Muskogee, where he met Andrew Jackson and became the general’s prote´ge´. It was once widely assumed that Houston would become President. After a bitter divorce, Houston resigned from office and retreated into alcoholism. In 1832, after emerging from a scandal over a fight with a Congressman and making a political comeback, Houston met with President Jackson. Jackson sent Houston to Texas with orders to investigate Indian grievances in the area and assess the likelihood of trouble. It is very likely that these orders were not the sum of his instructions, as Houston was quick to enlist in the statehood convention of 1833. The War of Texas Independence In 1835, Santa Anna ordered the state of Zacatecas to disband its militia. The state government refused, and Santa Anna responded with a swift and brutal military occupation. Texan settlers, on their own initiative, forced the Mexican military to abandon their customs post in the port of Anahuac. Shortly after Stephen Austin returned from Mexico City in August, 500 Mexican troops disembarked on the coast. It was now obvious to all that the only choices were submission to an increasingly dictatorial government or battle. Austin declared for war, and many settlers rallied to him. Austin assumed control of a small volunteer militia. Houston sent urgent letters back to Washington, D.C., claiming that the fighting would cause unrest among Native American tribes in the region. He requested that the federal government send troops to intervene. In November, the Texans organized a state government and made Houston a general. Austin recognized Houston’s superior skills and left to raise loans in the United States. The new state government decided against independence, for fear of antagonizing the early settlers and the state’s Mexican population —the Tejanos. The Texan militia was incredibly disorganized and undisciplined. Only the arrival of new volunteers from the United States kept the Texan army from completely disintegrating in December. These fresh volunteers were at the forefront of the Texan assault on the Mexican stronghold of San Antonio. The victory at San Antonio provoked Santa Anna into action. He began a long march through the arid lands of northeast Mexico, finally arriving outside San Antonio in March of 1836. The Texans had failed to reinforce the town’s garrison, due to squabbling between commanders and a complete failure of communication between the military and the government. Only 200 or so Texans were able to fortify themselves in the Alamo. Against them, Santa Anna had over 3,000 troops and a number of Tejano volunteers. The Texans fought well and Santa Anna’s generalship was poor. 600 Mexicans were killed in the storming of the Alamo, but virtually the entire garrison was killed. This process was repeated two weeks later at Goliad, where Santa Anna overran another Texan garrison and killed another 200 men—many of them executed after being taken prisoner.

TEXAS

These massacres solidified Texan identity as little else could. On March 2, as Santa Anna prepared to attack the Alamo, the Texan government declared itself independent. The new president, David Burnet, appointed Houston as commander-in-chief of the military. Houston adopted a Fabian strategy, retreating in the face of Santa Anna’s advance. Houston’s army was sorely outmatched by Santa Anna’s superior numbers and armament. Retreating east forced Santa Anna to extend himself and fritter away his men in garrisons and patrols, while Houston drew closer to his sources of volunteers in the United States. In addition, it is possible that Houston was still acting in the interests of President Jackson. Retreating across the Sabine into Louisiana might have provoked Santa Anna into crossing into American territory, and brought intervention by the U.S. Army. Indeed, Major General Edmund Gaines, the U.S. commander at New Orleans, mobilized his troops and moved them to the border in anticipation of trouble. As Houston withdrew, he destroyed everything usable behind him. Santa Anna was no less thorough in pillaging the countryside. While Houston wanted to deny forage and supplies to Santa Anna, Santa Anna wanted to destroy everything the Texans had built and deny them any reason to return. By mid-April, both sides were exhausted. Santa Anna was itching to return to Mexico City and the delicate political situation there. Houston’s army was on the verge of mutiny, demoralized after a long and hungry retreat. Many of the landowners were outraged by the loss of their slaves, many of whom had fled to join the Mexicans and Comanches. Santa Anna received news that the Texan government was evacuating to follow Houston east. He decided to seize the opportunity to decapitate the rebellion, charging after Burnet’s government with a few hundred crack dragoons. On April 19th, Santa Anna’s men missed capturing the Texans by a few minutes, charging onto the docks of Washington-on-the-Brazos as the President and others cast off in rowboats, heading for Galveston. The Mexicans held their fire—many of the Texans’ wives were in the boats. The news that Santa Anna had split his army electrified Houston’s camp. Houston ordered his men to march and they gladly did. After a brief skirmish, they discovered that General Martı´n Cos had joined Santa Anna and doubled his numbers. Houston was now outnumbered two to one, but held excellent defensive ground. Santa Anna concluded that the Texans would fortify. His troops were exhausted after their long march, and he ordered a rest before assaulting the Texans. Houston, goaded by his men, decided on an attack. The Texans caught the Mexicans completely by surprise, and mauled the fatigued army badly. The next day, Santa Anna was captured. The war now shifted from a military struggle to a political one. Houston demanded the surrender of Santa Anna’s army. Santa Anna refused, but issued an order for the Mexican Army to leave Texas. His generals obeyed, although they were more concerned with procuring food and fodder for their army than with Santa Anna’s order. Santa Anna signed a treaty recognizing Texas’s independence, and the Texan government ordered him released. He was far from safe, despite this—many Texans were eager to have Santa Anna killed. He was in fact marched to the site

187

188

TEXAS

of the Goliad massacre, where Texan troops had to guard him from an angry mob. In Mexico, there was little awaiting him. In his absence, he had been deposed. Independent Texas July saw the repudiation of the peace treaty by the Mexican government, which marched a fresh army to the border. Samuel Houston, elected President of Texas in September, kept an uneasy truce with the Mexican government, marked by constant skirmishes and provocations. In the September election, the people of Texas also called for annexation to the United States. In Washington, President Jackson pushed for the annexation of Texas, and perhaps of the vast Mexican lands to its west. The Whigs rallied to oppose this action, under the leadership of John Quincy Adams. Adams had a personal enmity for Jackson dating back to the presidency of his father John Adams, but his opposition was also based on principle: the Whigs and their New England base were firmly against the addition of more slave states. After Jackson’s second term, his successor Martin Van Buren lacked the will to push for annexation. While the U.S. government debated, independent Texas was in dire straits. The Comanches rose up as Houston had predicted. Houston managed to negotiate a peace with them, but his successor Mirabeau Lamar launched a campaign to destroy their power after his election in 1838. Lamar succeeded in pushing the Comanches north, but the effort was costly and bankrupted the new nation. The financial crisis was deepened by the expense of maintaining a large military force on the Mexican border. Texas brought in some revenue (and helped to keep Mexico destabilized) by leasing gunboats to a revolutionary government in the Yucatan , but it was far from enough. The Panic of 1837 had dried up sources of capital in the United States. Large parts of the Republic were virtually lawless, from the Comanche lands in the north to the swamps in the east which had served as a refuge for squatters and outlaws since the days of Spanish rule. Only the continuing weakness of Mexican government kept Texas from being swallowed. In 1838, the French Navy bombarded Veracruz in an attempt to force Mexico into a trade agreement. Santa Anna lost part of his right leg while serving with the defenders, and once again became a hero. In 1841, Santa Anna reassumed the Presidency of Mexico. His rule was more reckless than in his previous term, and he spent lavish amounts on his own aggrandizement, including two expeditions to retake San Antonio. In 1842, Houston was reelected as President of Texas. Frustrated by the continuing indifference of the United States and the renewed pressure from Mexico, Houston proposed an alliance to the United Kingdom. The gesture met its ulterior purpose, and U.S. President Tyler offered annexation to prevent Texas from falling into the British orbit. The giants of American politics rallied for and against annexation, with former President Jackson leading the pro-annexation party despite serious illness. The squabbling between Democratic factions and the Whigs allowed the surprise candidacy of the expansionist James K. Polk to succeed. Tyler

TEXAS

was determined to garner credit for himself before Polk’s inauguration and pushed Congress to vote for annexation. On February 28, 1845, Congress voted to annex Texas. On July 4, 1845, the Texan Congress voted to accept the annexation. The official transfer of power took place on February 19, 1846, when Texas President Anson Jones handed over his authority to Governor James Henderson. The State of Texas to 1861 The annexation of Texas provoked a furious response from Mexico. While the Texans and the U.S. government claimed that the border was at the Rio Grande, the Mexican government claimed the Nueces River further north as the border. The Nueces Strip, larger than many New England states, contained well-watered pastures and vast herds of wild cattle and horses. Troops were sent into the disputed land by both nations. On April 25, 1846, a firefight began that led to general war. President Polk had previously ordered American troops into convenient positions along the Mexican border to the west as well. The Americans won a series of hard-fought battles, pushing the Mexicans out of their northern territories. The Mexicans refused to admit defeat, and in March of 1847 General Winfield Scott led a massive amphibious landing force to seize the city of Veracruz. After six months of grueling marches, the U.S. Army took control of Mexico City. Sporadic fighting continued, but on February 2, 1848, the war was ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. The Mexican government gave up all claims to Texas and what was now the American Southwest for $15 million. The failure of President Santa Anna to win the war led to his final fall from power. The end of the war led to a new rush of immigrants. Between 1846 and 1860, the population of Texas rose from less than 150,000 to over 600,000. Many of these immigrants were from the South. The fertile soil of eastern Texas attracted plantation owners, and cotton fields were planted throughout the state. The fight over slavery, which had helped to provoke the Texas War of Independence, appeared to have been won by the slaveowners. The economy was almost completely agricultural—few wealthy landowners saw any reason to risk their money on industrial development when slave-tended cotton was so profitable. As for those white Texans without slaves, it was far easier to homestead land in the west outside the cotton-growing region than to attempt to make a living in the few relatively larger towns. The rapid growth of the slave system cemented Texas’s Southern identity. Texan politics reflected this identity. Sam Houston, who was idolized by many Texans as a hero, was rapidly losing popularity. His staunch Unionism angered many who felt secession was becoming a reasonable alternative as the balance of American economic and political power shifted away from the South. In 1857, he was handily defeated by Hardin Runnels in an independent bid for the governorship. Houston was able to win election as governor in 1859, but the election was widely seen as a referendum on Runnels’s poor administration— pro-secession candidates won election to other offices. The rumblings of secessionism became a roar in 1860. The fragmenting of the Democratic Party at its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, made

189

190

TEXAS

the election of Abraham Lincoln a foregone conclusion. While many politicians in the North and South tried desperately to stave off the looming crisis, others fuelled it. Southern secessionists, dubbed ‘‘fire eaters,’’ urged on those who were hesitant. After South Carolina took the fateful step of declaring its independence in December of 1860, a number of southern states followed suit. Despite the best efforts of Governor Houston to delay the inevitable, Texas seceded on February 1, 1861, and a referendum finalized the act on February 23. Despite intense pressure, turnout was low and only 40,000 of Texas’ citizens voted for secession. The following month, Houston was forced from office after he refused to swear loyalty to the Confederacy. Some leaders in the north of Texas agitated for secession in turn. While Confederate troops would eventually spend a great deal of effort hunting down pro-Union guerrillas in the north, the Unionists were not strong enough to push through a secession effort like the one in West Virginia. The Civil War and Reconstruction Most of the Texan troops who served in the Civil War served in the southwest, either defending their own borders or attempting to expand into Oklahoma and New Mexico. The United States attempted several amphibious landings at Galveston and Brownsville, but these efforts were almost entirely unsuccessful. The war took a dark turn for Texas in mid-1863, when General U.S. Grant took Vicksburg and closed the Mississippi to the Confederacy. Cut off from the main theaters of war, Texans suffered a number of hardships but were never subjected to the harshest deprivations which Southerners in the paths of the eastern armies had to face. General Kirby Smith, in command of all Confederate forces west of the Mississippi, was virtually an independent authority. After the surrender of Robert E. Lee in April of 1865 and his rejection of further guerrilla conflict, the Confederacy’s collapse was foreordained. Smith attempted vainly to keep his army together, but his men deserted in droves. Many Confederate diehards fled to Mexico, refusing to accept a life under Union occupation. On June 2, Smith surrendered. The arrival of Union forces in Galveston on June 19, 1865, marked the end of the American Civil War. The Reconstruction of Texas was largely a botched affair. The number of federal troops was quickly reduced from 51,000 to 3,000, and most of the remainder were stationed at frontier posts. The near absence of soldiers was combined with chaos at the center of administration, as eight generals served as military commander between 1865 and 1870. In 1866, conservatives who had allied with Unionists they found acceptable took control of the state government. The state government refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery. The firm refusal of the Southern states to cooperate with Northern demands led Congress to pass the First Reconstruction Act in March of 1867. The South was placed under military government, and a purge of prosecession officials began. In 1868, a coalition of white and black Republicans took control of the state government, in an election largely boycotted by prosecession voters. The Republican government was never popular and rarely effective. The Democrats seized their first opportunity to dismantle the Reconstruction

TEXAS

regime. By 1872, they had retaken Texas’s congressional seats and the state’s House of Representatives. In 1874, the Republican governor Edmund Davis was forced to step down and Reconstruction in Texas was ended. Texas Since 1874 The state grew rapidly, from 600,000 in 1860 to three million in 1900. Politically, the state was completely dominated by the Democratic Party. Agriculture was spurred by the development of railroads across the state, and ranching became a major part of the Texan economy. Manufacturing grew rapidly, and Texas’s first oil field was opened in the 1890s. Oil would shape modern Texas. In the 1920s, oil production in Texas skyrocketed, and oil discoveries in the surrounding states created a huge spur to the region’s economy. By 1929, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas were producing 60 percent of the nation’s petroleum. Texas had the fifthlargest population of any state. While the Progressive Era led to some reforms in Texan government, the state’s populace was heavily conservative. The desire to maintain the state’s social and moral order can be seen in the popularity of the Ku Klux Klan, which dominated state politics in the early 1920s. The stock market collapse of 1929 did not affect Texas much at first. Oil and cotton were able to keep the state’s economy afloat. In 1931, however, drought and continued economic malaise brought the Depression home to Texas. The state, which had voted for Hoover in 1928, returned to the Democratic fold. The Second World War brought a new economic boom to Texas, as new industries and military bases brought jobs. The growth fed upon itself, and the population grew from six million in 1940 to over 22 million today. The state shifted from agriculture to industry, and from a primarily rural state to a primarily urban one. The vast increase in the population of Texas has been matched by a similar increase in diversity. While the share of Texas’s population that is black has held fairly steady at 11 to 12 percent, its Asian and Native American populations have grown to over three percent. Most importantly, the state’s Hispanic population has exploded in size, and now comprises a third of the Texan population. Today, the state’s politics are still conservative, although the shifting demographics of Texas may change this. The Republican Party dominates elections for state and national office. The economy has largely shifted from manufacturing and oil to a service economy. The third largest of the states by population, Texas is at the height of its national influence. Modern Texan Secessionism Despite the economic growth and political power of Texas, many Texans still resent the federal government. Nostalgia for Texas’s brief independence plays a large part in the lingering pro-secession sentiment of some Texans. Since the days of Reconstruction, a number of people have attempted to organize new secession movements. Few have been able to gather any momentum. One of the more successful efforts is a group which asserts that it is the provisional government of the Republic of Texas. On December 27, 1995, the group declared its independence. It launched a number of publicity efforts, including a suit against the state government which it deemed illegal and appeals to the

191

192

TEXAS

U.S. State Department and the International Court of Justice. The Republic of Texas grew out of the ‘‘sovereign citizen’’ movement of the 1990s, which asserts that most of the federal government’s actions since the Civil War have been unconstitutional. Sovereign citizens often refuse to acknowledge the authority of federal or state governments. As with the Freemen at Montana’s Justus Township, the movement’s members are often involved with fraudulent schemes, tax evasion, and a number of other questionable activities. The Republic of Texas soon fell afoul of the state government when it attempted to sell bonds and currency. The combination of legal pressure and greed splintered the group in 1996. The movement devolved into terrorism. In 1997, Richard McLaren, who led one of the Republic’s three factions, seized two hostages and demanded the release of two of his followers. After a week-long standoff, McLaren and his fellow kidnappers were sent to prison. Another faction was involved in an assassination plot against President Clinton. These actions alienated many members. In 2002, a more moderate leader took control and established a capital in the small town of Overton. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the Republic of Texas has declared its friendship to the United States, if not its loyalty. Further Reading Bailey, Ilse. ‘‘Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch ... Or, The Militia is Alive and Well and Living in the Hill Country.’’ Texas Prosecutor 25, no. 3 (May/June 1995). Brands, H.W. Lone Star Nation. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Chidsey, Donald Barr. The Great Conspiracy: Aaron Burr and His Strange Doings in the West. New York: Crown Publishers, 1967. Lomask, Milton. Aaron Burr: The Conspiracy and Years of Exile, 1805-1836. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 1982. Marley, David F. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1998. Owsley, Frank Lawrence, Jr., and Gene A. Smith. Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1997. Republic of Texas Interim Government. ‘‘The Republic of Texas Interim Government.’’ http://www.republic-of-texas.net/index2.shtml Smith, David Paul. ‘‘The Limits of Dissent and Loyalty in Texas.’’ In Guerrillas, Unionists and Violence on the Confederate Home Front, Daniel E. Sutherland, editor. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 1999. Stephens, A. Ray and William M. Holmes. Historical Atlas of Texas. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989. Taylor, Quintard. In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 1528-1990. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998. Tennenbaum, Barbara, ed. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Texas State Historical Association. ‘‘The Handbook of Texas Online.’’ http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/search

TRANS-OCONEE REPUBLIC

Warren, Harris Gaylord. The Sword Was Their Passport: A History of American Filibustering in the Mexican Revolution. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1943. Watts, Thomas G. ‘‘McLaren rarely seen since late ’96.’’ Dallas Morning News, April 28, 1997.

Town Line—see Dade County. Trans-Oconee Republic. In the late eighteenth century, the Muskogee, often known as the Creek tribe, controlled a vast area stretching from southern Georgia and northern Florida west into Alabama and Mississippi. The most powerful man in the Muskogee tribe at the time was Alexander McGillivray, the son of a Muskogee woman and a Scottish trader, who virtually controlled the entire Muskogee economy through his contacts with the Spanish government, British companies, and American traders. McGillivray was unpopular among the Muskogee, but respected for his political acumen. Ingenious and ruthless, McGillivray was an early master of brinksmanship. In 1790, McGillivray’s maneuvering forced George Washington to ask for a treaty, which McGillivray traveled to New York to negotiate. This treaty was not well-received in many areas, especially in southern Georgia, where settlers had borne the brunt of decades of intermittent warfare. The treaty also angered many land speculators. Title to lands in Georgia were in a state of total chaos. At the time, there were nine million acres in Georgia outside the Muskogee lands, and title had been sold to 29 million acres. This was exacerbated when it was discovered that the new treaty returned lands to the Muskogee, further complicating the land ownership issue. One of the most vocal detractors of the Treaty of New York was Revolutionary War hero General Elijah Clarke, who had negotiated a punitive treaty with the Muskogee after defeating them in battle in 1785. Clarke was a prototypical frontier hero, a man of undoubted courage and military skill who was also illiterate and extremely blunt-mannered. Clarke owned disputed title to vast tracts of southern Georgia, which the treaty made worthless. He was also offended that his previous negotiations had been ignored and the land he had won at the point of a bayonet had been given up. The threat of huge financial loss and the perceived insult to his honor combined to spur Clarke to action. In mid-1790, Clarke announced that he would march across the Oconee River into Muskogee land and settle it anyway, and began recruiting soldiers for a private militia. Clarke hoped that his action would spark a revolt against the treaty, and that settlers would flood into the area. This advance of civilization would also coincidentally boost the value of his land titles immensely. Georgia’s Governor George Matthews was alarmed by this plot, and he ordered the settlers to stay out of Muskogee lands. He instead learned in mid-July that Clarke had crossed the Oconee, and was intending to set up an independent state, the so-called ‘‘Trans-Oconee Republic.’’ Matthews issued a proclamation condemning this on July 28, forbidding others from joining Clarke. He further called on Clarke to surrender. General Clarke shrewdly turned himself into the authorities of Wilkes County, which had suffered

193

194

TRANSYLVANIA

through constant guerrilla warfare with the Muskogee. Predictably, the county’s grand jury found Clarke innocent of any crimes, on the ground that the Treaty of New York with the Muskogee was illegal. This emboldened Clarke considerably, and upon his return he began organizing the Trans-Oconee Republic on an ever stricter military basis. New followers streamed across the Oconee to join him, and he began the construction of Fort Advance, a permanent military settlement. This alarming step brought the attention of President Washington, who began pressuring Governor Matthews to take decisive action. After another fruitless attempt at negotiation, Matthews ordered the Georgia state militia to assemble. On September 28, 1794, the militia burned Clarke’s illegal settlements. Clarke, angered, joined French service as a mercenary, and marched with his band of adventurers into Spanish Florida. The French consul there disavowed him, and he was shortly forced to retire in utter disgrace. He indulged in further land speculation of uncertain legality before his death in 1799. Further Reading Coulter, E. Merton. Georgia: A Short History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1960. Stevens, William Bacon. A History of Georgia, from its first discovery by Europeans to the adoption of the present constitution in 1798, vol. 2. Philadelphia: E.H. Butler and Company, 1859.

Transylvania. In 1774, Judge Richard Henderson of North Carolina, who had founded the Watauga settlement, organized a company of speculators to settle the Cumberland River. The Cumberland River valley in what is now Kentucky was richly productive, and at this time Henderson’s Watauga settlement was still a peaceful success. Kentucky was an obvious place for Henderson to plant a new colony—the land had recently been surveyed, and the Shawnee had been forced to relinquish all claims to the area after a devastating loss to a British expedition in 1774. The time was ripe to act—settlers were already trickling into the area, and conflicting land claims had stopped many speculators from rushing into the vacuum. The company acquired more investors, and was reorganized a year later as the Transylvania Company. Henderson’s agents, headed by Daniel Boone, explored the region and concluded a treaty with the Cherokee acquiring nearly all of Kentucky and large tracts of Tennessee west of the Watauga region. From the beginning, the treaty was on shaky grounds, as the Cherokees who met with Boone in the spring of 1775 spoke for themselves, and not for the Cherokee nation. Many of the Cherokee made their unshakable displeasure plain, and on March 25 a group of Indians fired on the settlers. As Boone oversaw the construction of forts, many settlers began to flee again. Henderson rushed to relieve the young colony, and Cherokee opposition melted away over the summer. By May, there were perhaps 300 settlers in Kentucky, many of whom had come independently and resented Henderson’s assumption of power. To assuage the original settlers, Henderson invited all of the settlements

TRANSYLVANIA

in Kentucky to send delegates to a meeting on May 23. There, Henderson harangued the delegates on the need for a stable government. At the meeting’s end, his oratory had secured the Transylvania Company’s control over the settlers, including the vital issue of land ownership—the older settlements agreed to pay rent to the Transylvania Company. This goodwill evaporated over the next few months, when Henderson unilaterally doubled the price of land and failed to convene a promised second meeting of the delegates. Adding insult to injury, Henderson granted his friends bargain prices on land and reserved a large section of prize land for himself. As support eroded for his government, Henderson felt the need for new allies. Rebuffed by the doomed British governor of Virginia, Henderson contacted the new state governments of Virginia and North Carolina. Both governments hoped to claim Kentucky for themselves, and neither recognized the treaty Henderson had negotiated with the Cherokee. Henderson’s agents also wooed the Continental Congress, but Congress was not interested in angering the Southern states by recognizing his claims. Recognition of Henderson would also mean further provocation of the British crown—at the time, Congress still held out reconciliation with the British Crown as a bargaining chip. Henderson’s control over Kentucky was fast waning, and the final stroke was about to be delivered. In June of 1776, a convention met at the town of Harrodsburg which decided to unite Kentucky with Virginia if acceptable terms could be reached. Under the influence of George Rogers Clark, who was chosen to represent Kentucky and approach Virginia’s government, the delegates made gestures towards a formal declaration of independence if terms could not be agreed upon. Clark asked Virginia’s legislature for gunpowder, an act which underlined the state’s claims to Kentucky. The legislature stressed this by passing an act soon after Clark’s arrival which made purchasing land from Indian nations within Virginia illegal. On December 31, Governor Patrick Henry organized the Transylvania claim and much of the modern state of Kentucky into Kentucky County. With little opposition, Kentucky was absorbed into Virginia. In November of 1778, Henderson was granted 200,000 acres by Virginia in central Kentucky, in recognition of his efforts at colonization. As the Revolution wound down, the region’s inhabitants grew exasperated with Virginian government, and within a few short years a new separatist movement urged the separation of a new state—or nation—of Kentucky. Further Reading Harrison, Lowell H. and James C. Klotter. A New History of Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1997. Henderson, Archibald. The Conquest of the Old Southwest: The Romantic Story of the Early Pioneers into Virginia, The Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky 1740-1790. New York: The Century Co., 1920. Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

195

196

TRI-INSULA, FREE CITY OF

Tri-Insula, Free City of. As the American secession crisis of 1860 moved slowly towards civil war, many Northerners declared their support for peace, no matter the cost. In January of 1861, New York’s charismatic and thoroughly corrupt Mayor Fernando Wood announced that the secession of the South was ‘‘a fixed fact,’’ and urged the City Council to declare the secession of Tri-Insula —an independent nation comprising Manhattan, Long Island, and Staten Island. Fernando Wood first came to prominence when he won election to Congress in 1840. He won election as Mayor in 1854 and quickly established his reputation. By 1857, the corruption permeating his government was so widespread and blatant that the state government at Albany replaced New York City’s police department with a new force—a move that Wood’s police met by fighting street battles with the state’s police. Despite the extraordinary corruption of his tenure, Wood was able to maintain tight control over the city’s political life. When the Tammany Hall political machine attempted to assert its power, Wood responded by creating his own political organization, dubbed Mozart Hall. Wood’s power depended largely on his control over the city’s Democratic voters. As a result, Wood was careful to adhere to the party line on slavery. These political concerns were reinforced by the huge revenues New York derived from shipping Southern cotton. Despite these political loyalties, New Yorkers were far from ready to secede. Political and business leaders were quick to reject Wood’s suggestion, and his stranglehold on New York politics began to loosen. The attack on Fort Sumter and the beginning of the Civil War ended any chance that New York would ally itself with the Confederacy. Wood shifted gears quickly. He raised a million dollars for the war effort and volunteered for military service. This sudden burst of patriotic activity did not have the desired effect—Wood was turned out of office in 1861. Wood’s fears turned out to be unfounded on one point—the insatiable demands of the U.S. Army fuelled New York’s economy for years as well as Southern cotton ever had. While public opinion swung sharply against Wood’s secession scheme after Fort Sumter, parts of New York’s populace remained less than enthusiastic about the war—a state of affairs confirmed most tragically in 1863’s Draft Riots. 50,000 people rioted, and their anger was focused on the city’s black population. Hundreds, mostly black, were killed, and army troops were forced to occupy the city for several weeks. Deprived of his independent power base, Wood threw himself into Tammany Hall’s embrace and was returned to Congress in 1863. There, he became the leader of the Congressional peace movement and was nearly removed from his seat by the Republican majority. Wood eventually became the House of Representatives’ majority leader before his death in 1881. Further Reading Bryk, William. ‘‘Mr. Wood—Rascal, Defrauder, Thug—Is Mayor.’’ New York Press 14, issue 1.

TRI-INSULA, FREE CITY OF

Lincoln Institute. Mr. Lincoln and New York. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org Roosevelt, Theodore. New York: A Sketch of the City’s Social, Political, and Commercial Progress from the First Dutch Settlement to Recent Times. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906.

197

V Vandalia. English settlers arrived late to western Pennsylvania, discouraged by the rugged terrain of the Allegheny Mountains and by the resistance of the area’s native Delaware tribe. The area was first surveyed in 1750 by Christopher Gist, who was working for a Virginian land company. On the basis of this expedition, Virginia laid claim to the region, a claim which led to a long conflict between Virginia and Pennsylvania. The French and Indian War brought military roads to the region in 1755. In 1763, British troops crushed the Native American allies of the French in the region. This victory, and the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix between Britain and the Shawnee, Iroquois, and Delaware cleared the way for settlers to cross the Alleghenies and enter western Pennsylvania. It also created a complicated political problem. Before the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, Virginia’s royal charter had granted it dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. However, in the treaty, Britain’s King George III acknowledged Iroquois claims to the land before assuming it himself. According to some interpretations, the region was therefore the private domain of the King, and no longer Virginia’s. Land speculators, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, were anxious to establish title to this land. In 1769, the speculator Thomas Walpole organized a land company and petitioned the royal government for the establishment of a new province called Vandalia, which covered large parts of what is now West Virginia and Kentucky, as well as parts of Pennsylvania. The British Board of Trade and Plantations, represented by Lord Hillsborough, opposed the plan bitterly. Establishment of a new province across the Alleghenies would threaten the British stranglehold on the American economy. Lord Hillsborough also argued that the new province would spark fresh conflict with the Native American tribes. In 1772, Benjamin Franklin issued a devastating rejoinder to Hillsborough’s arguments. He dismissed the political arguments easily, and methodically proved that a new western province would improve the American economy and reap huge profits for the British government. The Board of Trade approved the creation of Vandalia. While the machinery of government slowly moved, events overtook the new province—after the Boston Tea Party of December 1773, Franklin turned his attention to new pursuits. At the same time, investors backed out after learning that George Washington was surveying the land on behalf of Virginia speculators. When the American Revolution broke out in 1775, Vandalia was still entirely a theoretical entity, without a

200

VERMONT, REPUBLIC OF

governor, laws, surveyed boundaries, or any other presence whatsoever outside of some papers in London. The Articles of Confederation killed what was left of Vandalia, when Virginia’s claims to the western lands were confirmed. However, Virginia ceded those lands to the federal government in the wake of the Constitution’s ratification. At this time, several of the Vandalia investors approached Congress, and suggested resurrecting the project. By this time, however, settlers had organized their own governments in the region, and Vandalia failed to gain a second life. Further Reading Anderson, James Donald. ‘‘Vandalia: The First West Virginia?’’ Journal of West Virginia History 40, no. 4 (Summer 1979): 375-392. Miller, Thomas Condit and Hu Maxwell. West Virginia and its People. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1913.

Vermont, Republic of. Vermont’s Settlement and Land Disputes Vermont is a New England state, lying between New York and Quebec. The land is rugged and the population density is low. More than most New England states, Vermont clings to its rural Yankee roots. Vermont was first settled by Europeans when the French established a post there in 1666. In 1724, a Dutch settlement arrived but was quickly joined by a British fort. After the French and Indian War of 1754-1763, the indigenous Algonquin and Iroquois population was removed and the land opened to settlement. By the American Revolution, 20,000 settlers were living in Vermont. The land which is now Vermont was contested before the American Revolution. The charter of New York proclaimed its eastern frontier to be the Connecticut River, which would place Vermont within its borders. However, during the Seven Years’ War of the 1740s, the British government ordered the governor of New Hampshire, Benning Wentworth, to occupy a fort on the west side of the river, and claimed that it was part of New Hampshire. Sensing a golden opportunity to increase his power and fortune, Wentworth granted a charter to settlers in Vermont in 1749. A year later, the governor of New York bluntly rejected any claims New Hampshire might have in the region. The matter was further muddied when in 1751 British authorities affirmed that Vermont was part of New Hampshire. Emboldened, Wentworth flooded the region with land grants. He had granted almost half the land in Vermont to settlers when New York launched another protest in 1763. The government of New York launched criminal proceedings against the New Hampshire ‘‘squatters,’’ preparing a list of people to be evicted. Wentworth was preparing another series of legal maneuvers when Britain’s King George II declared Vermont to be part of New York in 1764. The following year, New York’s government issued summons to the settlers. The tortuous legal process ended when Britain’s government issued another edict allowing the settlers to remain in Vermont—but not before the relations between Albany and Vermont were permanently poisoned.

VERMONT, REPUBLIC OF

Into this atmosphere erupted the charismatic and lusty Ethan Allen, who established himself in 1770 as the spokesman and leader of the Vermont settlers. In June of that year, the government of New York officially revoked all New Hampshire grants in Vermont. The step was meant to clear the way for the profitable sale of New York land grants—and therefore the eviction of the Vermonters. As the storm began to gather, Allen rode across the region, gathering support for a militia to resist the dictates of New York. This militia, the ‘‘Green Mountain Boys,’’ would form the backbone of Vermont’s revolutionary army. The Green Mountain Boys operated through fear, harassing and intimidating surveyors and settlers, even as New York’s governor continued to enrich himself by selling land titles in Vermont. In the meantime, Allen and his brothers speculated in New Hampshire titles, which meant that their unflagging support of the Vermonters’ cause also swelled their own fortune. The insurrection took a darker turn in March of 1775, when the Vermonters attempted to prevent the new Court of Cumberland County from sitting. They expected, quite rightly, that the court would foreclose on many farms, evicting dozens of settlers. A skirmish between the mob and the town sheriff ended with two men mortally wounded. Even as the New York government prepared its response, the battles at Concord and Lexington erupted, and the conflict was subsumed into the American Revolution. Despite the advantages Vermont could have had through alliance with the British against the colonists in New York, Allen and the Green Mountain Boys fought ferociously for the American cause. The Vermonters were instrumental in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga at the war’s outset in cooperation with Benedict Arnold, and later in the brief capture of Montreal. However, the new revolutionary government in New York had inherited the colonial governor’s claims in Vermont, and meant to press them. Independent Vermont On July 24, 1776, the leaders of Vermont called a convention. Within two days, the convention had decided to announce the creation of ‘‘a separate district.’’ They also declared their allegiance to the Continental Congress. There, matters stood while the Allen brothers and other leaders waited for outcry from the population or the outside world. In January of 1777, the convention reconvened and promulgated a declaration of independence, aimed more at New York than at the British crown. The new state was briefly named New Connecticut, but over the course of the next few months, the name ‘‘Vermont’’ came into general use. The first year of independence was chaotic, with battles fought in the north against the British and tensions still high with New York. Factions began to multiply, especially in the southeast. There, an alliance formed between a faction which desired annexation to New Hampshire and a faction which wanted eastern Vermont and western New Hampshire to form a new third state. The leaders of this faction presented a petition to the state government from 16 New Hampshire towns, asking for annexation to Vermont. Despite alarm at this in Vermont’s west, the legislature managed to approve the measure, and the towns were annexed in June of 1778. Ethan Allen, recently returned from

201

202

VERMONT, REPUBLIC OF

captivity after the battle of Quebec, managed to drive a compromise through, and on October 21, the legislature voted to retain the republic’s original county organization. The New Hampshire towns were therefore excluded from Vermont, and forced to return to New Hampshire. The New Hampshire faction lured that state into voting to annex Vermont on June 21, while Allen attempted to ease a fresh outbreak of ill will along the New York border. Exasperated, Congress took the matter over, and announced its intention to settle the claims in Vermont once and for all by February of 1780. Alarmed, the government of Vermont slowly hitched up its courage and denied that Congress had any reason to intervene. At the same time, the British were marauding at will throughout the southern colonies. This chaos allowed Vermont to regain some breathing room. When Congress finally started hearings in September, Ethan Allen delivered a letter announcing that if Vermont was not to be allowed entrance into the United States, it would make a separate peace with the British. Daunted, Congress voted to delay the final decision. 1781 brought fresh dangers. The Vermont government managed through duplicity to gain a truce with the British. The New Hampshire party managed to declare the secession of the entire eastern half of Vermont and its annexation to New Hampshire, but in the course of one night, Ethan Allen’s brother Ira managed to persuade the easterners to reverse themselves and rejoin Vermont. How he did it is still a mystery. The conspiracy and intrigue grew deeper when the pro-New Hampshire faction attempted again to annex several towns along the Connecticut River. This time, Allen responded by persuading several New York towns to join Vermont, in order to balance the New Hampshire party. The balancing act held throughout the year, but Allen and the other leaders of the state were exhausted. Congress offered to admit Vermont if it would return the territories of New Hampshire and New York, a move which would certainly end the truce with the British army massed on the northern border. As the legislature met and prepared for the end of the small republic, and as the British prepared to launch an invasion and the New Hampshire party was on the edge of full-scale insurrection, luck intervened. News arrived that Lord Cornwallis had surrendered at Yorktown, a catastrophic defeat that finally ended the American Revolution. Vermont and the United States After the war, Vermont fought a brief and nearly bloodless war with New York over the land it had seized. As tensions rose yet again with New Hampshire, George Washington intervened personally, giving his word that Vermont would be recognized. On February 22, 1782, Vermont formally returned the lands it had seized from New York and New Hampshire. Congress, however, failed to hold up its end of the bargain. Vermont’s government responded by once again making itself into an infernal nuisance, stoking up a large amount of rebellion by citizens who wanted reconciliation with New York. This rebellion was centered on the town of Guilford, which had never acknowledged the government of Vermont and was for all practical purposes independent. Vermont allowed the New York faction there to simmer for months. Ethan Allen was summoned from retirement to deal

VICKSBURG

with the rebels. After a brief show of force, Guilford meekly submitted. The rebels were dealt with leniently, with some ringleaders exiled to New Hampshire. The government allowed the civil war to simmer until May of 1784, when Guilford’s militia was finally expelled at the cost of two lives. By this point, New York and Congress were heartily sick of the whole affair—Vermont’s intention in the first place. Vermont spent the next few years in happy isolation, unburdened by the calamitous war debts which hobbled the United States. As the United States adopted its Constitution, this isolation began to end. The Federalists wanted to admit Vermont to balance the coming admission of Kentucky as a slave state. The last obstacle was cleared on October 7, 1790, when New York finally withdrew its claims to Vermont. On January 6, 1791, the legislature of Vermont ratified the United States Constitution and applied for statehood. Congress approved the measure, and on February 18, President George Washington signed the act. After two decades of struggle, Vermont surrendered its independence, but the patient and wily maneuvering of its government had gained its greatest objective—recognition as a full and equal member of the United States, beside the states which had so long denied its right to exist. Today, a small movement calling itself the Second Vermont Republic calls for the state’s secession. As it has only 125 members, it seems unlikely that the secessionists will pose a serious threat to the status quo. Further Reading Daniell, Jere R. Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire Politics and the American Revolution, 1741-1794. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. Thompson, Charles Miner. Independent Vermont. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. Van de Water, Frederic F. The Reluctant Republic: Vermont, 1724-1791. New York: John Day Company, 1941.

Vicksburg—see Dade County.

203

W Washitaw. There are a number of sovereign citizen movements in the United States—movements which had their origin in the anti-federal government views of the 1970s group, Posse Comitatus. Posse Comitatus and the groups which follow their philosophy assert that the federal government has illegally assumed powers rightfully belonging to the people. The sovereign citizens renounce federal law and authority. The movement gained popularity in rural areas of the United States, which were hit hard by economic changes and the collapse of many small farms in the 1970s and 1980s. The movement’s message of empowerment soon gave rise to opportunism, as sovereign citizens renounced their taxes and their debts. Some adherents, such as the Freemen of Montana’s Justus Township, flooded local courts with liens and other legal documents based on their interpretation of common law. Sovereign citizen movements have been connected on numerous occasions with fraud, counterfeiting, and other crimes. One of the most curious of the sovereign citizen groups is the Empire of the Washitaw. Led by Empress Verdiacee Washitaw-Turner Goston El-Bey, the Washitaw movement claims that the Mound Builder cultures, which occupied much of the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys, were descendants of African immigrants to America. They further claim that most African-Americans are actually descendants of these Washitaw. The only black nationalist group to employ the common law terminology of the sovereign citizen movement, the Washitaw are unfortunately enthusiastic in their embrace of the movement’s history of confidence scams. Washitaw members have been convicted several times over the last decade for financial crimes ranging from conspiracy to bank fraud. Estimates place the group’s numbers at around 200. While arrests in the 1990s thinned the ranks of the leadership, the Washitaw continue to insist on their rightful ownership of the Louisiana Territory, and to recruit new members. In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Washitaw asking for over $30 million in damages from a bank which had refused to deal with them. Further Reading Atkins, Stephen A. Encyclopedia of Modern American Extremists and Extremist Groups. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Southern Poverty Law Center. ‘‘Born on the Bayou.’’ Intelligence Report, Spring 1999.

206

WATAUGA ASSOCIATION

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ravanna Sanders v. United States. 05-5028. May 18, 2005.

Watauga Association. The Watauga Valley of northeastern Tennessee and western North Carolina was first occupied by English settlers in the late 1760s. The spur to this settlement was the repression of North Carolina’s ‘‘Regulation’’ movement. The colonial government was highly unpopular and corrupt, and many residents of North Carolina banded into armed groups in order to protect themselves from unscrupulous officials. As the movement grew in power and the Regulators threatened to choke off all taxes to the colonial government, Governor William Tyron of North Carolina called out the militia in 1768 and quieted the protestors through military demonstrations throughout the countryside. While many Carolinians grudgingly accepted the new state of affairs, many more were determined to strike out for the frontier and start anew. By the time the Regulator movement met its final end in a firefight between the settlers and the provincial militia in 1771, several hundred settlers had moved into the Watauga region, effectively beyond the reach of the colonial authorities. The valley was especially attractive because the government of Virginia had recently, in 1768, concluded a treaty with the Cherokee Nation which ceded parts of eastern Tennessee to Virginia. The Cherokee, who had been involved in a vicious war with the Chickasaw, were desperate to maintain the goodwill of the colonists, who provided their stores of materiel. The arms and gunpowder were vital to the Cherokee, who were reduced in numbers and were no longer able to guard their eastern lands. The settlers of Watauga believed that their land fell within the Virginian grant, but discovered in 1771 that Watauga fell within those lands granted to North Carolina, and therefore were still the property of the Cherokee. In 1772, the government of North Carolina ordered the Watauga settlers to vacate their lands. Deeply alarmed, the settlers appointed a team of negotiators to meet with the Cherokee, who agreed to lease the Watauga Valley to the colonists for a period of 10 years. After this action, the colonists drafted and ratified Articles of Association without notifying or consulting with the British authorities, effectively becoming the first independent republic on American soil. (Unfortunately, the Articles have since been lost.) In a final insult to North Carolina, the settlers adopted the legal code of Virginia. Within two years, the Cherokee had begun chafing at the Wataugan settlement’s behavior. They claimed that the Wataugans were disregarding the terms of the lease, as settlers continued to arrive and the Cherokee were forced out of their hunting grounds. The fiercest opponent of the Watauga settlement was the Cherokee Chief Dragging Canoe. Dragging Canoe led the Cherokee into battle. Despite their best efforts, the Cherokee were unable to dislodge the settlers. In 1775, the Cherokee gave in and sold the land in perpetuity to the Wataugans for a token payment. Dragging Canoe and others refused to accept the agreement. Events were shortly to encourage him. As the events of 1775 showed the first stirrings of war with Britain, Watauga followed North Carolina in establishing a Committee of Safety. The British

WEST FLORIDA

began arming the Cherokee, and encouraged the embers of guerrilla war back into flame. Alarmed, the southern states declared war against the Cherokee and militias were marched west to cow them. While most Cherokee laid down their arms, Dragging Canoe led a group of dissidents from several tribes into his new Chickamauga tribe, which carried on the fight. In May of 1776, the Cherokee issued a threatening note to Watauga, renouncing the lease and giving three weeks for the Wataugans to evacuate. The settlers responded in several ways, first appealing to the British commander in the region in an attempt to stay neutral. When this was rejected, Watauga approached the government of Virginia and asked for annexation and protection. Virginia declined. With their options narrowing, the residents of Watauga determined to set aside their enmity with North Carolina. On July 5, 1776, Watauga’s leaders swore to uphold the Continental Congress, and petitioned North Carolina for annexation. While their petition got in a last jab, chiding North Carolina for calling the Wataugans ‘‘a lawless mob,’’ they laid down their independence in reassuringly final words: We may venture to assure you that we shall adhere strictly to your determinations, and that nothing will be lacking or any thing neglected, that may add weight...to the glorious cause in which we are now struggling.

One of the signers of this petition was John Sevier, who would go on to play a pivotal role in the renegade government of Franklin. Another was Richard Henderson, a former judge who would go on to found the new governments of Transylvania and Cumberland to the west. After the petition was sent, Watauga changed its name to the Washington District. On August 22, 1776, North Carolina accepted the petition and Watauga’s independence came to an end. Further Reading Dixon, Max. The Wataugans: First Free and Independent Community on the Continent. Johnson City, TN: Overmountain Press, 1989. Henderson, Archibald. The Conquest of the Old Southwest: The Romantic Story of the Early Pioneers into Virginia, The Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky 1740-1790. New York: The Century Co., 1920. Watauga Committee of Safety. ‘‘Petition to the Hon. the Provincial Council of North Carolina.’’ July 5, 1776. Williams, Samuel Cole. Tennessee During the Revolutionary War. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Historical Commission, 1944.

West Feliciana—see West Florida. West Florida. In the eighteenth century, the province of West Florida stretched from the Florida peninsula to the eastern bank of the Mississippi River. Settled by the Spanish and French, the area passed to English control in 1763 as a result of the Seven Years’ War. 20 years later, the Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolution returned the province, along with East Florida, to Spanish rule. By this time, however, the majority of the area’s inhabitants were English-speaking and mostly Protestant settlers. The settlers’ loyalty lay

207

208

WEST FLORIDA

naturally with the United States in that nation’s struggle with the Spanish for control of North America’s interior. The most vocally pro-American group were the landowners, men who had made their fortunes in land speculation. The value of their title depended on the market, and so these men encouraged further immigration. Attachment to the United States would further this goal. Tensions in the area increased after the Natchez territory succeeded in declaring its independence and joining the United States. Many settlers in West Florida took note of the precedent. An abortive rebellion took place in 1803, under the leadership of the Kemper brothers. The Kempers were typical of the settlers of the time, uncouth and unlettered but brave to a fault. Like so many patriots, their self-interest coincided neatly with their patriotism; they were in constant dispute with neighbors over land title, a problem independence from Spain would neatly solve. The Kempers organized a raiding party in 1804 which succeeded in briefly capturing Baton Rouge, a town where less than 10 percent of the population was Spanish. They first raised the flag of independent West Florida on August 7, but they were shortly expelled by a platoon of Spanish soldiers. The Kempers led several more sporadic filibustering attempts, but each time they were defeated. After each of these skirmishes, the Kempers retreated to the safety of the bayou of the Natchez Strip. These insurrections were noted in Washington. The continuing decay of Spanish power and the demographics of West Florida indicated that the region would sooner or later rebel and throw off Spanish rule. Attempting to speed the process, President Jefferson appointed American agents in nearby regions to assist and encourage the rebels. Upon the election of James Madison, American efforts were redoubled. The governors of Mississippi Territory and New Orleans were specifically instructed to encourage rebellion in West Florida. Despite these machinations, the Kempers never succeeded in enlisting the support of the local population and mounting a real challenge to Spain. A more serious threat to Spanish dominion occurred at Baton Rouge in 1810. Following Napoleon’s invasion of Spain, the Spanish dominions fell into turmoil, and the American settlers at Baton Rouge formed a Committee of Public Safety. While the Committee pretended cooperation with the Spanish governor, its intent was clear from the beginning. In June, a group of armed American settlers camped outside the port of Mobile, preparing to assume control of the town. A few days later, the Committee met at Feliciana and began preparing to declare themselves the government of an independent West Florida. On July 25, the Committee, headed by a John Rhea, asked the United States for annexation and for a loan to finance the Committee’s government. President James Madison, however, had developed several anxieties over the West Florida controversy he had done much to create. He was uncertain over whether the Constitution allowed him to dispatch troops on a mission of conquest and, more pertinently, whether the adventure would erupt into war with Spain and her ally Great Britain. He therefore refused to consider the request. The Committee, dismayed, applied itself to the dreary work of organizing a more permanent authority. When an intercepted letter revealed that the Spanish governor had requested troops from Mexico, the Committee broke the

WEST KANSAS

fragile truce, and a republic was declared under the presidency of Fulmar Skipwith, a prominent local planter and former American diplomat, on September 26. The Republic of West Florida then formally applied for statehood. President Madison was annoyed with the planters’ action, since it threatened his ongoing negotiations to purchase all of Spanish Florida. Balancing the gain against European disapproval, Madison accepted the fait accompli and American troops moved south to take possession in October. On December 6, 1810, the flag of the Republic of West Florida was hauled down for the last time, and the area was added to the Territory of Orleans. This action angered President (lately Governor) Skipwith, who wanted West Florida to be recognized as a state. At the height of his disappointment, just before the republic’s end, he declared himself ‘‘ready to die in defense of the Lone Star Flag.’’ At the last minute, however, Skipwith gave the order to lower the colors. Disappointed that his work had been dismantled, Skipwith refused election to the territorial legislature and instead took a lucrative post as a registrar of land deeds. The Kemper brothers, who had re-emerged in the final stages of West Florida’s revolution, went on to various adventures. Samuel Kemper fought as a filibuster for the first Republic of Texas in 1813, and Reuben Kemper fought valiantly at the Battle of New Orleans. The threat of rebellion raised its head briefly in 1811, when Congress passed a law admitting Louisiana as a state, without including the districts of West Florida. Angered by this separation, the residents of the town of Feliciana raised the flag of West Florida and threatened to declare independence again. The government took the threat seriously enough to send troops into the town, and a year later Congress amended the act creating the state of Louisiana to include parts of West Florida. Further Reading Anderson, Laurie Smith. ‘‘Original constitution for West Florida Republic back in Louisiana.’’ Baton Rouge Advocate, 9/17/00. Cox, Isaac Joslin. The West Florida Controversy, 1798-1813: A Study in American Diplomacy. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1967. Gilbert, Ann. ‘‘West Florida.’’ Inside Northside, February-March 2003. Johnson, Allen. ‘‘Jefferson and His Colleagues.’’ In Chronicles of America, vol. 15, edited by Allen Johnson. New York: R.A. Kessinger and Company, 1921. Tebeau, Charlton W. A History of Florida.Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1971.

West Kansas. Western Kansas is both physically and culturally remote from the major centers of population in the eastern half of the state. Located several hundred kilometers from the capital of Topeka, with a small and fiercely independent rural population, western Kansas is prosperous, thanks to extremely fertile land and a thriving natural gas industry. In 1992, a proposal was made to change the way the state funded public education. Control of school funding was to be taken from local governments, and a statewide standard was proposed. The proposal alarmed the inhabitants of

209

210

WEST VIRGINIA

western Kansas greatly. The proposal would raise their property taxes, while setting a ceiling for per-student funding that would slash their spending. Many in western Kansas were outraged by the plan. The new tax structure would siphon money out of west Kansas, weakening local government, costing jobs, and hurting education. Several county governments started organizing a protest movement. While many protestors limited themselves to standard protest measures, including lawsuits, boycotts, and the withholding of tax payments, others took more extreme measures. In early 1992, three counties held non-binding referenda on secession from Kansas. The overwhelming positive response led to more referenda, and it soon became apparent that a large majority of the west wanted secession. In some counties, more than 90 percent of voters approved secession. The architects of secession soon discovered that other counties in the region were upset with their own state governments. In fact, a month before the secession movement in Kansas started, a legislator in northern Texas advocated secession. On March 17, 1992, delegates from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado met to discuss a united effort. It soon became apparent, however, that the Kansans were preoccupied with the school funding issue. The delegates from the other states declined to participate in what was soon seen as an entirely Kansan dispute. The secession movement suffered another blow when Kansas’s attorney general, Robert Stephan, announced in no uncertain terms that secession from Kansas was unconstitutional and illegal. In May of 1992, the governor signed the school finance revision into law. Undeterred, seven hard-line counties sent delegates to a constitutional convention on September 11, 1992. The delegates declared the independence of the state of West Kansas, outlined a constitution, and sent petitions for recognition to Topeka. The petitions were ignored, and the secession movement ran out of steam. Today, while several sections of the 1992 reform have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Kansas and the state legislature has altered the law significantly, Kansas continues to fund its education according to the 1992 law’s basic precepts. Western Kansas has continued to feel alienated from Topeka. While the secession movement is moribund, the potential for future unrest remains. Further Reading McCormick, Peter J. ‘‘The 1992 Secession Movement in Southwest Kansas.’’ Great Plains Quarterly 15, no. 4 (Fall 1995): 247.

West Virginia. West Virginia was originally part of the colony of Virginia. It was first settled in 1731, and coal was discovered 10 years later. The state’s terrain is difficult and hilly, which prevented the establishment of plantation culture in the west. The settlers had much more in common with the Appalachian settlers who would arrive in Kentucky and Tennessee than with the culture of eastern Virginia.

WHISKEY REBELLION

The land, as in the rest of Appalachia, was owned mostly by small farmers who attempted to eke a living out of the soil and who exploited the region’s abundant lumber and mineral resources. The people were poor, and few people in the West Virginia region owned slaves. In addition, the state’s political establishment was under the firm control of the eastern planters, who imposed unpopular taxes and ignored the region’s infrastructure. Even as the political alienation of western Virginia deepened, the coal and mineral deposits of the region spurred the development of an industrial economy. Virginia enacted a new constitution in 1851 which granted universal suffrage to white males, but it was too little too late. The growing resentment in western Virginia found a voice after Virginia seceded from the United States in April of 1861. The western counties had stridently opposed secession. After the secession, representatives of the counties which now comprise West Virginia met at Wheeling under guard by Federal troops, where they declared the secession voided and organized a new government, headed by Francis Pierpont. As it became apparent that the crisis would become a war, a referendum was organized. Confederate forces attempted several times to take the area, but were rebuffed. The referendum was duly held, and approved the creation of a new state on October 24, 1861. At first, the state was to be called Kanawha, but by the time a constitution was approved in April of 1862, it had become West Virginia. On June 20, 1863, Arthur Boreman was inaugurated as the new state’s first governor. Pierpont still claimed to be acting as governor of Virginia, and announced his consent to the division on behalf of that state. Until the war’s end, Pierpont continued as the governor of those Virginian territories occupied by the United States. West Virginia is, along with Maine and Vermont, one of only three states which have successfully seceded from another and joined the United States. To this day, West Virginians and Virginians maintain a cheerful scorn for each other. Further Reading Alexander-Williams, John. West Virginia: A Bicentennial History. New York: Norton, 1976. Rice, Otis K. West Virginia: A History. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, 1985.

Westmoreland County—see Whiskey Rebellion. Westmoreland, State of—see Wyoming Valley. Whiskey Rebellion. The Settlement of Western Pennsylvania English settlers arrived late to western Pennsylvania, discouraged by the rugged terrain of the Allegheny Mountains and by the resistance of the area’s native Delaware tribe. The area was first surveyed in 1750 by Christopher Gist, who was working for a Virginian land company. On the basis of this expedition,

211

212

WHISKEY REBELLION

Virginia laid claim to the region, a claim which led to a long conflict between Virginia and Pennsylvania. The French and Indian War brought military roads to the region in 1755. In 1763, British troops crushed the Native American allies of the French in the region. This victory, and the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix between Britain and the Shawnee, Iroquois, and Delaware cleared the way for settlers to cross the Alleghenies and enter western Pennsylvania. The settlers were typical of the type—tough, courageous, and fiercely independent. Many viewed their move west as an escape from arbitrary and stifling authority. A majority of the settlers were Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, a minority which had long chafed under English domination. Disputed Ownership and the Westsylvania Movement When the settlers arrived, they found two competing governments in place, as Pennsylvania and Virginia both tried to assert control over the transAllegheny region, as did the chimerical province of Vandalia. In 1773, Pennsylvania’s British governor established the area’s first court, and organized the land west of the Alleghenies as Westmoreland County. This action provoked Virginia’s Governor Dunmore into a move which nearly sparked war between the two colonies. Dunmore appointed the frontier trader John Connolly as a military governor for the trans-Allegheny. In January of 1774, Connolly took over Fort Pitt, outside Pittsburgh, and summoned the region’s able-bodied men to form a militia. Pennsylvania authorities took swift action, arresting Connolly. Connolly was released on his own recognizance, and returned quickly to Pittsburgh. He retaliated in April, when he took a group of armed Virginians and arrested three magistrates during a court session of Pennsylvania’s Westmoreland County. Many of the region’s settlers resented Dunmore and the harsh tactics of his crony, Connolly. The conflict was tied to the nascent American independence movement, as settlers allied with the revolutionaries of eastern Pennsylvania against the British Empire, in the person of Lord Dunmore. In 1775, as rebellion broke out, Connolly fled the country. He was soon replaced by Captain John Neville, who exercised the same powers on behalf of Virginia’s revolutionary government. This confusion provoked many settlers to declare ‘‘a pox on both your houses,’’ and in August of 1776 a petition was presented to Congress asking for the recognition of the region (along with much of what is now West Virginia) as the new state of Westsylvania. Congress was wary of setting the precedent, and George Washington was strongly opposed to the idea. Faced with a stony silence, the settlers resigned themselves to the clashing governments. Neville organized a regular government on behalf of Virginia, which was divided in November of 1776 into three county governments. At the same time, loyalists of Westmoreland County participated enthusiastically in the drafting of Pennsylvania’s new constitution, which promised equal representation for all regions in the legislature and the establishment of an executive council, with members drawn from each of the state’s counties, which then numbered 11. The democratic nature of the constitution appealed to the trans-Allegheny

WHISKEY REBELLION

settlers. It did not, however, persuade many to switch their allegiance wholeheartedly to Philadelphia. The clashing governments had difficulty in enforcing laws and collecting taxes, which bothered few people in the region. The demands of the Revolutionary War smoothed over the worst of the tensions between Pennsylvania and Virginia, although the organization of two separate governments and militias hampered military coordination in the region, especially as raids by Native American tribes increased. In 1780, the two states delineated their current border. This did not end the conflict—as late as 1782, pro-Virginia settlers fired on Pennsylvanian tax assessors. In January of 1783, as the Revolution’s last embers died down and the establishment of a permanent government loomed, some settlers, especially the former Virginian party, attempted to revive the Westsylvania project. This time, several of the region’s leading citizens led the fight to quash the new petition, and it was stillborn. The last of the remaining tensions were eased when Pennsylvania organized the region into three counties a few months later, defusing the complaint of pro-Virginia settlers that they could not get to the county seat to transact business. The Origins of the Whiskey Rebellion The end of the Revolution and the resolution of the Pennsylvania-Virginia conflict led to a brief respite, and the settlers had something of a honeymoon with Pennsylvania’s new democratic government. This honeymoon was soon over. Western legislators found themselves frustrated in the state legislature, as eastern Pennsylvanians under the influence of Philadelphia’s powerful magnates allied with liberals to restore the rights of Tories, who had remained loyal to Britain during the Revolution. They lost to the east when they opposed ratification of the federal Constitution and its powerful central government. In 1790, western interests were further eroded when a new state constitution shifted executive power from a Council of Censors to a single Governor, removing the area’s voice in the executive branch. This political disenfranchisement was compounded by class resentment. The long chaos before the Revolution had left land titles in a state of confusion. Often, political connections were used to gain clear title, and the land-rich proprietors used their wealth to gain more political power. By this time, a relative handful of men controlled the county governments of western Pennsylvania. Without an effective voice in government, the common farmers of the transAllegheny region became more radical, and increasingly likely to decide political issues in their own forums, from churches to taverns. Another issue which brought matters in the west to a boil was the 1790 defeat of General Josiah Harmar by the Miami tribe. Hundreds of American troops were slaughtered in a pair of humiliating routs, many soldiers having thrown down their muskets and fled at the first sign of Native American scouts. This catastrophe encouraged a new and horrifying series of Miami raids. The most serious conflict was sparked, as it so often was in those days, by taxation. At the time, the Mississippi River was still closed to American commerce and the Erie Canal had not yet opened the Great Lakes to navigation. As a result, all of the area’s exports had to travel across the Alleghenies into

213

214

WHISKEY REBELLION

Pennsylvania. Instead of hauling huge loads of wheat, it made better economic sense to distill the wheat into whiskey, which was shortly the basis of the region’s economy. The state government imposed a tax on whiskey of four cents per gallon, an excise the western legislators attempted fruitlessly many times to repeal. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton was serving as Secretary of the Treasury. The most pressing issue for him to resolve was the heavy load of war debt that the federal government had to repay. In order to help make payments, he asked Congress to pass a federal tax of four cents per gallon on whiskey. Congress passed the tax on March 3, 1791. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 This tax seriously threatened the livelihood of all whiskey producers, and doubled the tax burden of Pennsylvania distillers. Western Pennsylvania erupted into chaos. Several counties called a meeting, where they discussed the issue. They resolved that the law was ‘‘inimical to the interests of the country’’ and refused to pay the tax. On September 6, 1791, a tax collector was ambushed, and tarred and feathered. The outrage was strong enough for the Pennsylvania legislature to repeal its own excise on whiskey. During this time, the county governments of the west were meeting to discuss the matter. A number of strongly worded resolutions were approved. This did not mollify the people of the west, though, and several other people suspected of being tax collectors were beaten or tarred. One was held captive for hours, and tortured with a heated bar of iron. The controversy simmered for months, and sentiment was strong enough for a second convention of western officials in August of 1792, which issued another condemnatory resolution and called for a boycott of anyone who dared to enforce the excise. This was too much for President Washington, who issued a stern warning. The mob quieted somewhat, but an assessor was still threatened by a mob in his home, and forced to resign. The next major incident occurred in July of 1794. Tax assessors had served summons on several distillers, and liberty poles, symbols of resistance to tyranny since the Revolution, had been erected throughout western Pennsylvania. On July 16, John Neville, a prominent local citizen and one of Philadelphia’s few allies in the west, was assisting federal Marshal David Lenox in serving summons when he discovered men lying in wait outside his house. Lenox had already left for Pittsburgh, but the mob did not know it. Neville was in no mood to explain anything, and fired a warning shot at the armed men. The shot struck a man and mortally wounded him. At this point, the mob opened up a volley of fire at Neville’s home that continued for half an hour, while Neville’s wife and servants loaded guns for him to fire out the windows. Neville wounded another four men, and his slaves wounded several more firing from their quarters. The mob retreated, and Neville called for assistance from Fort Fayette. The next morning, 11 soldiers guarded Neville’s house, and were confronted by a militia of 500 men. Negotiations broke down quickly and a firefight ensued. Another militiaman was killed. The soldiers surrendered, and the mob burned down Neville’s home. The militia did not disperse, but instead marched to the outskirts of Pittsburgh while delegates were sent into the city

WHISKEY REBELLION

to issue demands, including the resignation of the officials who administered the excise in the region. It was at this point that a lawyer informed the militia’s leadership that their actions could be construed as treason. Shaken, the militia dispersed, and the leadership called a meeting for August 14, in a month’s time. Meanwhile, events took on a life of their own. David Bradford, a local farmer who saw the rebellion as his rendezvous with destiny, sent out letters calling out the militia. On August 2, 1794, the militia assembled at Braddock’s Field, eight miles from Pittsburgh. The citizens of the town, convinced they would be invaded, spent the day hiding valuables and gathering food in anticipation of a siege. The next morning, Pittsburgh organized a small force to go out and meet the militia, now 5,000 or 6,000 strong. The town appointed counselors, who negotiated passage through Pittsburgh for the insurgent militia. Despite many tense moments, violence did not break out during the march, and the militia under Bradford pondered their next move, especially wary of the troops nearby at Fort Fayette. The march weighed heavily on the delegates to the August 14 convention at Parkinson’s Ferry. Moderates tried to tamp down the flames of revolt, but to little avail. On August 15, a liberty pole was erected outside the convention’s meeting hall, with a flag on it. The flag bore six stripes (one for each county that sent delegates), and the motto ‘‘Equal taxation, and no excise. No asylum for traitors and cowards.’’ The militia organized a Committee of Public Safety, which threatened to topple the legal governments of the region. The federal government had been alarmed. Even before news arrived of the dire developments at the August 14 convention, President Washington decided to raise a federal militia and send it west. In the meantime, federal commissioners arrived and made clear the extent of Washington’s determination to stop the rebellion before the Westerners completed their march to secession. The Committee of Public Safety got cold feet, and voted to submit to federal authority. The people, however, were far from convinced. Despite their lingering inclination to revolt, they could do little without leadership, and the movement began to disintegrate. By this time, rioting had spread to Virginia and Maryland, and liberty poles began to appear in town squares throughout those states. The call for militia to assemble was ignored throughout the nation, and a draft was soon enforced. The troops were unruly, and the march west took until early November. The arrival of federal troops set off a panic, and several thousand people fled across the Pennsylvania border into what is now Ohio. A few leaders of the Committee of Public Safety were arrested, but the expedition’s show of force was deemed sufficient. 1,500 men stayed behind, and the remainder marched back east starting on November 19, 1794. The trials of the men arrested were perfunctory, for lack of willing witnesses. In July of 1795, Washington issued pardons for anyone involved in the Whiskey Rebellion. The small distillers lost their economic battle, as capital began to move west and larger operations drove many of them out of business. As they struck out further into the frontier, however, the numbers and political power of the Westerners grew. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was elected President,

215

216

WINN PARISH

breaking the Federalist hold on power. Jefferson, a staunch advocate of the western settlers’ claims, repealed the federal excise tax in 1802. Further Reading Baldwin, Leland D. Whiskey Rebels: The Story of A Frontier Uprising. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1939. Boyd, Steven R., Ed. The Whiskey Rebellion; Past and Present Perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. Ferguson, Russell J. Early Western Pennsylvania Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938. Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1981. Miller, Thomas Condit and Maxwell, Hu. West Virginia and its People. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1913. Simons, Paul Z. ‘‘Keep Your Powder Dry: Two Insurrections in PostRevolutionary America.’’ In Gone to Croatan: Origins of North American Dropout Culture, edited by Ron Sakolsky and James Koehnline, 201. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1993. Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Thomas, E. Bruce. Political Tendencies in Pennsylvania, 1783-1794. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1939. Westmoreland County Historical Society. A Short History of Westmoreland County. 1997. http://www.lauffer.us/WestmorelandCountyHistory2.htm

Winn Parish—see Winston County. Winneconne. In 1967, Wisconsin’s Department of Transportation published a set of official road maps. Unfortunately, the town of Winneconne (west of Oshkosh, in the state’s southwest) was somehow omitted. Winneconne’s 1,300 citizens went into an uproar. When Wisconsin Governor Warren Knowles assured the town that the omission was merely an oversight, they made him chairman of a contest to put Winneconne back on the map. The contest asked citizens across the country for suggestions on the best way to get publicity for the town. Two girls from Washington, D.C., submitted the winning entry, urging the town to secede from the United States and declare war. On July 22, village President James Coughlin followed their advice. The town held a ceremony to mark the raising of its flag, accompanied by volleys from a volunteer group’s black-powder muskets. Coughlin and Winneconne’s village council deputized a local man who owned a boat as the village’s navy, and another citizen flew his single-engine plane over the town to fulfill his duty as Winneconne’s air force. To raise revenues for the celebration, the Republic erected a tollbooth at the border which charged a quarter to all cars entering Winneconne. It collected a total of seven dollars. The new republic’s leadership, heady with power, also chose an official bird, fish, and flower. Just before the close of business hours

WINSTON COUNTY

on the 22nd, Governor Knowles called Winneconne’s President Coughlin and urged him (tongue planted firmly in cheek) to rescind the secession. The Governor also promised to erect signs to direct drivers to Winneconne and help defuse the crisis. After these negotiations, Winneconne officially rejoined the United States at noon on July 23. In 1976, Rand-McNally accidentally omitted the town from its annually updated road atlas. Unable to repeat its secession threat against RandMcNally, Winneconne settled for a letter of protest. Further Reading McCann, Dennis. ‘‘Winneconne’s vote to secede put it on the map, again.’’ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 14, 1998. Racine Journal Times, ‘‘State snub on maps prompts call to secede.’’ Racine Journal Times, October 10, 1997.

Winston County—also Free State of Winston. Winston County sits in northwestern Alabama. Several small river valleys pass through the county, but much of the region is rugged hill terrain. It was therefore slow to develop; northern Alabama was unsuited to plantation agriculture and provided refuges to hostile Native American groups until the 1830s. While some plantations were cleared in the county’s river valleys, Winston County was largely unsettled until a wave of immigrants arrived in the 1840s and 1850s. These new arrivals were largely from the northern Appalachians. They maintained a stubborn loyalty to the idea of the United States, and northern Alabama’s Appalachian immigrant population opposed the demands for secession which gripped the rest of the state. They were also motivated by resentment towards the few plantation owners in their midst, who looked down on the rustic immigrants. Another component of their Unionism came from their near-universal adoration of Andrew Jackson, who had nailed shut the door to secession for South Carolina a generation earlier and settled the matter forever for Winston County’s population. The secession crisis came quickly after South Carolina’s declaration of independence on December 20, 1860. After South Carolina’s action, state legislatures began meeting throughout the South to debate secession. It soon became apparent that Alabama would secede. During a heated debate in the secession convention, Winston County’s representative Christopher Sheats threatened that if Alabama could secede from the Union, then Winston County could secede from Alabama. Despite Sheats’s opposition, secession passed 61 to 39, with most opposition based in the state’s north. Winston County’s Unionist population was outraged by the secession, which they considered illegal and immoral. Few Winstonians had any real connection to a land they had arrived in a few years earlier, and no desire to die for the vague concept of state’s rights or for the concrete reality of slavery. Alabama newspapers began mocking Winston County’s reticence, mistaking it for cowardice, and called the county the ‘‘Free State of Winston.’’ The tensions between Alabama’s south and north exploded after the attack on Fort Sumter and the beginning of the Civil War in April 1861. Civil leaders throughout

217

218

WINSTON COUNTY

Alabama’s solidly Unionist north (along with like-minded men from eastern Tennessee, another solidly Unionist area), discussed the formation of a new state, Nickajack. The official response to these maneuvers was absurdly hamhanded. Alabama’s Governor John Shorter threatened to impose a draft on Winston County if it did not produce more volunteers. This was the last straw for Winston County. On July 4, 1861, around 3,000 people from across northern Alabama showed up for a convention at Looney’s Tavern. After a commendation for Christopher Sheats (who had been jailed for his failure to support secession), the convention turned to the topic of secession from Alabama. After a short discussion, it was decided that the proposed state of Nickajack would be unable to survive deep within Confederate lines. The convention promulgated a Declaration of Neutrality, and reiterated its threat to secede if provoked. Although Winston County remained within the Confederacy, even this limited document produced difficulties and several near-riots before the Civil War came to a close. The Confederate government was forced to impose a draft in 1862, and many of Winston County’s men disappeared into the back country rather than fight, while hundreds of others made their way north and joined the army of the United States. Unionists who remained in Winston County were under constant threat—several were brutally killed, including one Union soldier home on leave who was castrated and then skinned alive. Winston County’s soldiers, organized as the First Alabama Cavalry, served the Union cause invaluably as scouts and raiders before mustering out and returning home in 1865. Other Secession Legends While Winston County never actually went through with its declaration of independence, the idea of a region seceding from the secessionist Confederacy has a certain appeal, and so it is unsurprising that the legend has grown in the retelling. Several other Southern regions opposed to the war have also acquired legends of their own. Callaway County in central Missouri was dubbed the ‘‘Kingdom of Callaway’’ by Confederate Colonel Jefferson Jones at the outbreak of the Civil War, and the name stuck, despite the fact that the county never attempted to break away from Missouri. Louisiana’s Winn Parish, outside New Orleans, was another Unionist area. During Louisiana’s secession convention, Winn Parish’s representatives refused to vote for secession, marring what would otherwise have been a unanimous vote. The story became inflated until the area was known as the ‘‘Free State of Winn.’’ The most famous legend is that of the ‘‘Free State of Jones.’’ According to the legend, Jones County in southern Mississippi seceded from the Confederacy during the Civil War. However, no evidence exists that such an event took place. The legend appears to have some basis in fact: the nickname ‘‘Free State of Jones’’ was used for the county, but was used in antebellum Mississippi and referred to the paucity of slaves in Jones County. Jones County, like Winston County, was strongly pro-Union. Many residents refused to recognize the Confederate government’s authority, especially as manifested in the hated draft. Many men deserted from the Confederate military and went into hiding in swamps near the Leaf River. The leader of this

WISCONSIN

group was Newton Knight, a staunch pro-Unionist who scandalized his highsociety relatives by his marriage to a black woman. In early 1863, his band numbered nearly 100. The Confederacy’s defeat at Vicksburg swelled their numbers. As the Jones County deserters gained men and notoriety, the Confederate government increased its pressure. Soldiers sent to hunt the deserters down were fired upon, and dozens of men were killed before the war’s end on both sides. The deserters began targeting Confederate officials for assassination. By early 1864, Jones County was practically off-limits to the Confederacy. Knight’s men made several attempts to establish contact with U.S. forces near the Mississippi River. In July, the pro-Union Natchez Courier proclaimed that Jones County was independent of the Confederacy. This exaggerated propaganda was seized on by other writers, and the myth of the ‘‘Free State of Jones’’ was born. While Knight’s power during the Civil War was exaggerated, his power after the war was not. In 1865, he was appointed the federal relief commissioner for Jones County. Knight lived until 1922, but was never able to correct the growing aura of falsehood around his exploits. Further Reading Bynum, Victoria A. The Free State of Jones: Mississippi’s Longest Civil War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Callaway County Public Library. ‘‘Why is Callaway County Called the Kingdom of Callaway?’’ http://callaway.county.missouri.org/kingdom.htm Kelly, B.C. The Best Little Stories from the Civil War. Charlottesville, VA: Montpelier Publishing. 1994. Leverett, Rudy H. Legend of the Free State of Jones. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press, 1984. Mize, Joel Sanford. The Story of Thornhill, Marion County, Alabama. http://joel. mize.home.comcast.net/genealogy/thillWhitehouse.htm Smith, William Jay. Army Brat: William Jay Smith, a Memoir. Ashland, OR: Story Line Press, 1991.

Wisconsin. While most people think of the South when the secession crisis of 1860 is mentioned, few think of Wisconsin. Govenor Alexander Randall’s threat of secession might have simply been remembered as a political ploy, had it not had tragic consequences. Randall was a staunch abolitionist, who pushed through a referendum on black suffrage during Wisconsin’s first state constitutional convention in 1846. After the Republicans took office in 1855, Randall was appointed a judge. He easily won election as Governor in 1857. He immediately went on the attack, accusing the Democratic administration of James Buchanan of fraud in the distribution of federal land grants in Wisconsin. One of the nation’s most uncompromising opponents of slavery, Randall was eagerly supported by Wisconsin’s pro-union majority. Few of Wisconsin’s citizens approved of slavery, and many were especially outraged by the Fugitive Slave Act. The election campaign of 1860 fuelled this stance. One state legislator from Waukesha introduced a resolution calling for Wisconsin to declare war on the United States if a proslavery candidate won the presidential election. Randall himself met the

219

220

WOUNDED KNEE

rumblings of secessionism from the South with a suggestion that he would secede if Lincoln lost. The secession movement was serious and thorough enough that Wisconsin’s Adjutant General canvassed the state militia to discover which units would support the federal government and which would support the Governor. The commander of the Irish Union Guard, Captain Garrett Barry, declared that any secession attempt would be treason. In response, the state stripped Barry of his command and disarmed his men. Barry refused to take this quietly. With help from Wisconsin’s Democratic Party, Barry and his men, now dubbed the Independent Union Guard, commissioned a steamboat to go on a cruise to Chicago, where the passengers would attend a speech by the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas. The cruise started as a grand success, with several hundred packing the boat, the Lady Elgin. After the speech and a parade, the passengers reboarded. The Lady Elgin left Chicago late on the evening of September 7, 1860. The winds were strong, and were soon at gale force. About 2:30 am, the winds forced a 266-ton schooner to crash into the boat. The Lady Elgin sank, and the survivors were forced to cling desperately to fragments of the ship, hoping for rescue. Only 160 were pulled from Lake Michigan. Over 500 died, including Captain Barry. The incident led to recriminations on both sides. Democrats accused Governor Randall of causing the tragedy by disarming the Union Guard. Some Republicans, with even less cause, accused the Lady Elgin’s captain of being a Southern agent provocateur. The election of Abraham Lincoln defused the Wisconsin secession movement. Governor Randall worked tirelessly to mobilize Wisconsin’s war effort. On January 10, 1861, he told the state legislature: A state cannot come in the Union as it pleases and go out when it pleases. . .Secession is revolution; revolution is war; war against the government of the United States is treason.

Needless to say, few at the time were crass enough to point out his own views of a few months before. Further Reading Baillod, Brendon. The Wreck of the Steamer Lady Elgin. Madison, WI: Great Lakes Maritime Press, 2003. Klement, Frank L. Wisconsin in the Civil War. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society, 1997. Wisconsin Historical Society. Dictionary of Wisconsin History. https://www. wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/

Wounded Knee—see Dakota. Wyoming Valley. The ‘‘Yankee-Pennamite Wars’’—1769 to 1783 The Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania was first settled by farmers from Connecticut. In 1754, a Connecticut land company negotiated the cession of a strip

WYOMING VALLEY

of land from the Iroquois. This land, which contained the lushly forested Wyoming Valley, rested between the 41st and 42nd latitudes, and from 10 miles east of the Susquehanna River to 120 miles west, an area of over 7,000 square miles. The only problem was that most of this region lay within the boundaries of Pennsylvania. In 1755, settlers began to arrive. The Pennsylvanian government, unwilling to move openly against the settlers, urged a local Delaware chief to attack the settlements. The Delawares refused to do so after dissension within the tribe. The eruption of the French and Indian War halted all settlement in the area until the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix, which opened most of Pennsylvania to English settlement. The Iroquois deeded all of their land in the province to the government of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania government decided that this trumped the earlier cession to Connecticut. The first test of Pennsylvania’s will came in 1769, when a new group of 40 settlers arrived from Connecticut. All were arrested by a local sheriff for trespassing. The settlers were released on bail, and returned the following spring— not to stand trial, but as part of a 300-man force that established a fort. In July, a force of Pennsylvanian militia arrived and demanded that the fort be demolished. They were met with scornful disdain. In November, the same sheriff who had arrested the original settlers came upon the commander of the Connecticut militia and apprehended him. Leaderless and facing a large group of armed Pennsylvanians, the Connecticut settlers again withdrew east. In 1770, the Connecticut speculators turned to desperate measures. They contacted a group of renegades called the Paxtang Rangers. The Rangers had first come together as a militia during the vicious frontier fighting of the French and Indian War a decade earlier, where they distinguished themselves in patrols along the border with the Iroquois. After the war’s end, the Rangers continued to attack Native American settlements, and before long they were wanted criminals. The Rangers were skilled guerrilla fighters, however, and easily evaded capture. At the same time, they were contacted easily enough by the Connecticut land companies. The Rangers were promised a large tract of land in the Wyoming Valley—if they protected the Connecticut settlers from Pennsylvanian retaliation. Before long, the Rangers had terrorized most of the Pennsylvanians within the valley into fleeing. The last Pennsylvanian fort in the region, under a Captain Ogden, was abandoned in April of 1770. Ogden continued to fight a losing battle against the Rangers and a flood of new Connecticut settlers, erecting several new forts just to have them fall. In August of 1771, the Pennsylvanians finally threw in the towel after a long siege of Fort Wyoming. Connecticut organized the region as the town of Westmoreland and annexed it. The peace was shattered in 1775, when Pennsylvania’s government ordered a new assault on the Connecticut settlement. The royal governor feared the influence of the Wyoming Valley interlopers, as he presumed them to share the antiBritish sentiments of Connecticut following the battles of Concord and Lexington. A regiment of Connecticut militia met the invading force from the top of a waterfall, behind a wall of granite. As the Pennsylvanians charged futilely, Paxtang Ranger forces posted on the Connecticut army’s right flank prevented the Pennsylvanians from climbing a nearby hill and bypassing the sheer walls.

221

222

WYOMING VALLEY

The Pennsylvanian forces broke after a full day of fighting, leaving behind several hundred dead and wounded. This tragic confrontation was soon overshadowed by the outbreak of the American Revolution in Pennsylvania. The Wyoming Valley dispute was shelved, and both Pennsylvania and Connecticut turned their energies to the war. In July of 1778, British troops arrived in Westmoreland, accompanied by several hundred Seneca warriors. The Connecticut militia hastily assembled, but made the mistake of attempting to meet the British troops in open battle. Before they could fire more than three volleys, the Seneca had flanked them. The British then gave the prisoners, 200 of the 300 who had entered battle, over to the Seneca. Over the course of the evening, all of the prisoners were clubbed to death—only two escaped to spread word of the massacre. The Senecas then burned down the settlements, spawning a bitter revenge a year later at the hands of American troops that destroyed their villages in western New York. In 1781, Pennsylvania asked Congress to consider the contested lands. Hearings did not begin for several months, until the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown basically ended the Revolution and freed Congress to mull the matter. In December of 1782, a Congressional commission found in favor of Pennsylvania. Rumors were rife that the decision was the product of a backroom deal. Certainly, suspicions were provoked by the speedy action of Pennsylvania speculators, who appointed an agent to draft demands. These demands were harsh, calling for all Connecticut settlers to rent the land they had developed from the Pennsylvania speculators, and to leave within a year. Widows of those killed in the 1778 massacre were granted a one-year extension. The Pennsylvania Legislature endorsed the speculators’ demands, and sent troops into the Wyoming Valley. Before long, the Connecticut settlers were subject to various outrages. Pennsylvanian troops were quartered in private homes. People were arrested without charge, and held in filthy, overcrowded jails without food or water. In March of 1784, a flood washed out many homes in the area. The Pennsylvanian government refused to lift a finger to help. Alexander Patterson and the Second Yankee-Pennamite War These abuses finally caught the attention of Congress, which prepared to hold hearings. The Pennsylvania speculators rightly feared that the outcome of those hearings would be unfavorable, to say the least. On May 13, 1784, they took a desperate gamble. The speculators’ agent, Alexander Patterson, ordered the Connecticut settlers expelled at the point of bayonets. Several hundred were gathered at Fort Dickinson, while their farms were burned, roads torn up, and their wells blocked. Patterson then forced the 800 prisoners, many of whom were children or elderly, to march east. This march became one of the most horrifying chapters in American history. Patterson deliberately chose a path which would kill off many of the prisoners, a grueling death march through hip-deep mud which was still freezing cold in the late spring. The march lasted for 14 days, without rest, without food, and without water. Hundreds died. People along the path of the march were

WYOMING VALLEY

horrified, and soon returned to feed the prisoners from horses laden with all the food they could spare. The Pennsylvanian government was appalled at Patterson’s actions, but could take little action against the powerful speculators, who backed him to the hilt. Patterson and 45 of his henchmen were arrested —but were released after paying a fine. After his release, the speculators hired Patterson to guard the Wyoming settlement. He and his men moved into the houses that they had expelled the Connecticut settlers from. More Connecticut settlers arrived, grimly determined to protect the refugees who were camped miserably on a mountain near the former settlement. Several men died in firefights throughout July and August of 1784. The Pennsylvanian legislature sent the secretary of the Executive Council, John Armstrong, with 400 men to end the war. Using an underhanded deception, he managed to disarm and capture the entire Connecticut militia, but the local sheriff refused to honor the indictment and released them all on bail. Astonished to find the Connecticut men still on the march, Armstrong hastily returned, itching to finish the matter. He was forced to settle for an armed stalemate, when he discovered that the settlers had been reinforced by veterans of Vermont’s wars in the north, who had come south to help in the worthy cause. It could also be argued that the intervention was part of Ethan Allen’s strategy of provoking as many fights as possible, in order to demonstrate that Vermont was so annoying a foe that no one would dare oppose it. By this time, the state government had heard enough of the matter. In September, Pennsylvania’s Council of Censors (appointed to watch over the government) condemned Patterson and the speculators, and confirmed the Connecticut settlers in ownership of their land. Despite this action, Pennsylvania’s government was firmly in the pocket of the speculators, and Armstrong was authorized to raise a militia force and ordered to expel the settlers once and for all. The people of Pennsylvania, appalled by the bloodshed and tired of taking orders from the corrupt speculators, refused to fight. Armstrong could raise only 40 men, who abandoned him after a single battle. Armstrong then evacuated the Wyoming valley. The settlers burned down his fort. The war was over. The Aftermath of the Wars The settlers had no intention of remaining part of Pennsylvania, after ten years of vicious persecution. Many began to talk of forming a new state. In 1786, Ethan Allen himself arrived from Vermont, in order to help the Westmoreland settlers establish themselves. Pennsylvania abandoned any attempt to maintain its jurisdiction in the area. On August 8, 1786, the last Pennsylvania magistrate left the area, resigning it to the settlers. In short order, committees of prominent citizens organized schools, taxes, and courts. The roads were repaired, and on September 27, a board of commissioners was appointed. The board prepared to draft a state constitution. This provoked Pennsylvania into action. In February of 1787, the government decided to try coopting the Westmoreland leadership, organizing a new county in the area and appointing several prominent local citizens as election commissioners. One of these men, John Franklin, refused to accept the commission

223

224

WYOMING VALLEY

and instead asked Congress to reconsider the matter. The House of Representatives voted to reopen their inquiry, but the Senate defeated the petition. Pennsylvania took revenge on Franklin, charging him with treason. He was arrested in October. The state government took advantage of a legal loophole to avoid charging and trying him, by shuttling him between two jails. Franklin was kept in this limbo for two years before he was released by the state’s Supreme Court, his health broken. Finally, he was pardoned in 1792. Upon his return to Westmoreland, the people immediately elected him sheriff. The 1787 election returned a county government which was deeply hostile to Philadelphia, but it served the purpose the Pennsylvania government wanted: to defuse the matter and end it as quietly as possible. The Westmoreland statehood movement dissolved, and the inhabitants slowly outgrew the hatreds the long struggle had engendered. Further Reading Irby, Richard E., Jr. The State of Westmoreland and the Pennamite-Yankee Wars. 1998. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acopolis/2691/pyw.html Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1981. Miner, Charles. History of Wyoming, In a Series of Letters, from Charles Miner, to his Son William Penn Miner, Esq. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, 1845.

Selected Bibliography Abbott, Carl, Stephen J. Leonard, and David McComb. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State, Third Edition. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1994. Adams, James Truslow. Revolutionary New England, 1691-1776. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1923. Adams, James Truslow. New England in the Republic, 1776-1850. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1926. African Theological Archministry. Oyotunji Village. 2005. http://www.oyotunjiafricanvillage. org/ Alaskan Independence Party. Alaskan Independence Party. 2006. http://www.akip.org Alexander-Williams, John. West Virginia: A Bicentennial History. New York: Norton, 1976. Allen, Mike and Sue Anne Pressley. ‘‘Puerto Rico Bombing to End in 2003.’’ Washington Post, June 14, 2001, p. A01. American Indian Law Alliance. ‘‘Grass Roots Oglala Lakota Oyate Official Proclamation.’’ 2001. American Lighthouse Foundation. ‘‘Boon Island Light, Maine.’’ 2003. http://www.lighthousefoundation.org/boonisland.cfm Anderson, James Donald. ‘‘Vandalia: The First West Virginia?’’ Journal of West Virginia History 40, No. 4 (Summer 1979): 375-392. Anderson, Laurie Smith. ‘‘Original constitution for West Florida Republic back in Louisiana.’’ Baton Rouge Advocate, 9/17/00. Anderson, Peter. ‘‘The Conch Republic.’’ 1996-2004. http://www.conchrepublic.com Anti-Defamation League. ‘‘Little Shell Pembina Band.’’ 2005. http://www.adl.org/ Learn/Ext_US/Little_Shell.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_ in_America&xpicked=3&item=little_shell Aptheker, Herbert. American Negro Slave Revolts. New York: International Publishers, 1983. Aptheker, Herbert. ‘‘Maroons Within the Present Limits of the United States.’’ In Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas, edited by Richard Price. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1996. Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. Arrington, Leonard J. History of Idaho, Volume I. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press, 1994. Arthur, John Preston. Western North Carolina: a History (1730-1913). Raleigh, NC: Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1914. Associated Press. ‘‘‘Ginger’ Inventor Writes His Own Rules.’’ February 6, 2002. Associated Press. ‘‘Secession Leader Tells Trenton to Take Note.’’New York Times, November 6, 1980, section B, p. 11. Atkins, Stephen A. Encyclopedia of Modern American Extremists and Extremist Groups. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Bailey, Ilse. ‘‘Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch. . .Or, The Militia is Alive and Well and Living in the Hill Country.’’ Texas Prosecutor 25, No. 3 (May/June 1995). Baillod, Brendon. The Wreck of the Steamer Lady Elgin. Madison, WI: Great Lakes Maritime Press, 2003.

226

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baldwin, Leland D. Whiskey Rebels: The Story of A Frontier Uprising. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1939. Beaver Island Historical Society. A Short History of Beaver Island. 2003. Bennett, Lerone Jr. Black Power U.S.A.: The Human Side of Reconstruction 1867-1877. Chicago: Johnson Publishing, 1967. Bernardo, Jack M. ‘‘South Jersey Secession: Two Views—Outsider Sees A Valid Complaint.’’ New York Times, October 18, 1981, section 11, p. 36. Boyd, Steven R., editor. The Whiskey Rebellion; Past and Present Perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. Brands, H.W. Lone Star Nation. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Brau, Maria M. Island in the Crossroads: The History of Puerto Rico. Garden City, NY: Zenith Books, 1968. Brown, Roger Hamilton. The Struggle for the Indian Stream Territory. Cleveland, OH: Western Reserve University Press, 1955. Brunelle, Jim. A Brief History of Maine. Portland, ME: Maine Historical Society, 1980. Bryk, William. ‘‘Mr. Wood—Rascal, Defrauder, Thug—Is Mayor.’’ New York Press 14, issue 1. Burton, Marda. ‘‘Keying-In the Conch Republic.’’Saturday Evening Post 260, no. 1( Jan 1988): 64-68. Bushman, Richard L. Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1984. Butterfield, Fox. ‘‘Mopeds Spur Secession Talk on Block Island.’’ New York Times, May 31, 1984, section A, p. 1. Bynum, Victoria A. The Free State of Jones: Mississippi’s Longest Civil War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Callaway County Public Library. ‘‘Why is Callaway County Called the Kingdom of Callaway?’’ 2001. http://callaway.county.missouri.org/kingdom.htm Carey, Charles H. General History of Oregon Through Early Statehood. Portland, OR: Binfords and Mort, 1971. Carrier, Paul. ‘‘Bill calls for close look at secession.’’ Maine News, March 2, 2005. Carse, Robert. The Age of Piracy: A History. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1957. Carter, James L. Superior: A State for the North Country. Marquette, MI: Pilot Press, 1980. Castanha, Anthony. The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement: Roles of and Impacts on Non-Hawaiians. Thesis: University of Hawai’i, August 1996. Catton, Bruce. The Coming Fury. London: Phoenix Press, 2001. Cha´vez, Ernesto. ‘‘¡Mi Raza Primero!’’ (My People First) Nationalism, Identity, and Insurgency in the Chicano Movement in Los Angeles, 1966-1978. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002. Cha´vez, John R. The Lost Land: The Chicano Image of the Southwest. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1984. Chicago Tribune. ‘‘Council Urges Chicago Form Distinct State.’’ June 25, 1925. Chicago Tribune. ‘‘A NY Hamlet Weighs Return to the Union.’’ July 7, 1945. Chidsey, Donald Barr. The Great Conspiracy: Aaron Burr and His Strange Doings in the West. New York: Crown Publishers, 1967. Christian Exodus. ‘‘Christian Exodus.’’ 2006. http://www.christianexodus.org Churchill, Ward. Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide, and Expropriation in Contemporary North America. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1993. Coates, James. Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right. New York: Noonday Press, 1987. Coblentz, Stanton A. Villians and Vigilantes: The Story of James King of William and Pioneer Justice in California. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, Inc., 1936. Colburn, Richard and J. Lowell Stoltzfus. Eastern Shore—Secession From Maryland—A Straw Ballot. Maryland State Senate Bill 564, 1998. Conley, Chris. ‘‘State of Dade Revisited.’’ Dade County Sentinel, June 29, 2005.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cornwell, Elmer. Rhode Island History. 2004. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/studteaguide/ RhodeIslandHistory/rodehist.html Coulter, E. Merton. Georgia: A Short History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1960. Covington, James W. The Seminoles of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1993. Cox, Isaac Joslin. The West Florida Controversy, 1798-1813: A Study in American Diplomacy. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1967. Cox, Noel. ‘‘Tax and Regulatory Avoidance Through Non-Traditional Alternatives to Tax Havens.’’ New Zealand Business Law Quarterly, Fall 2003. Cullari, Nicole. The Maritime Republic of Eastport. 2006. http://www.themre.org Dandurant, Karen. ‘‘A Ray of Light for Historical Beacon.’’ York Weekly, April 2, 2003. Daniell, Jere R. Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire Politics and the American Revolution, 1741-1794. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. Davis, William C. Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America. New York: The Free Press, 2002. Davis, William C. The Pirates Lafitte: The Treacherous World of the Corsairs of the Gulf. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2005. DeConto, Jesse J. ‘‘Police Chief Jokingly Nominated for Governor of Newington.’’ Portsmouth Herald, July 21, 2001. DeConto, Jesse J. ‘‘Residents talk secession in Rye.’’ Portsmouth Herald, August 7, 2001. DeKaury, Spoon. ‘‘Narrative of Spoon Decorah.’’ Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Volume 13. Madison, WI: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1895. Delgado, James. Alcatraz Island: The Story Behind the Scenery. Las Vegas: KC Publications, 1987. Denton, Sally. American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857. New York: Alfred Knopf, 2003. Devine, Michael J. ‘‘State Politics.’’ Chicago Historical Society, 2005. The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1194.html Dewing, Rolland. Wounded Knee II. Chadron, NE: Great Plains Network, 2000. Dixon, Max. The Wataugans: First Free and Independent Community on the Continent. Johnson City, TN: Overmountain Press, 1989. Dorr, Thomas. ‘‘An Address to the People of Rhode Island.’’ Speech, 1834. Downing, Charles. Stabbed With a Wedge of Cheese and Other Cultural Oddities. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1992. Dwyer, Jim, chief editor. Strange Stories, Amazing Facts of America’s Past. Pleasantville, NY: Reader’s Digest General Books, 1989. Ehle, John. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Elliott, Russell R. History of Nevada. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1973. Elsener, James. ‘‘Michigan U.P. Makes Noises for Statehood.’’ Chicago Tribune, March 13, 1975. Estabrook, Arthur H. ‘‘The Tribe of Ishmael.’’ In Eugenics, Genetics and the Family: Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, vol. 1. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1923. Evelyn Sirrell, et al. v. State of New Hampshire, et al. The State of New Hampshire Rockingham, SS. Superior Court. 99-E-0692. 2001. Farragher, John Mack. A Great And Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians From Their American Homeland. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2005. Fehrenbacher, Don E. A Basic History of California. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964. Fehrenbacher, Don E. The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government’s Relations to Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Feldberg, Michael. ‘‘Noah’s Second Landing at Ararat.’’ In Blessings of Freedom. New York: American Jewish Historical Society, 2002. Fellows, Lawrence. ‘‘Might It Be Nantucket, Conn.?’’ New York Times, July 24, 1977.

227

228

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ferguson, Russell J. Early Western Pennsylvania Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938. Finkelman, Paul, editor. Rebellions, Resistance, and Runaways Within the Slave South. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989. Foner, Eric. A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. New York: Harper and Row, 1990. Foreman, Grant. A History of Oklahoma. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942. Franklin, John Hope and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Geringer, Joseph. Jean Lafitte: Gentleman Pirate of New Orleans. 2004. Gettleman, Marvin E. The Dorr Rebellion: A Study in American Radicalism: 1833-1849. New York: Random House, 1973. Gibbons, Jim. ‘‘All in Fun: There’s a History Between Eastport and Annapolis.’’ New Bay Times 6, no. 4 (January 29, 1998). Gibson, Arrell Morgan. Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2nd Edition. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 1981. Gilbert, Ann. ‘‘West Florida.’’ Inside Northside, February-March 2003. Gilpin, Alec R. The Territory of Michigan, 1805-1837. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1970. Green, Thomas Marshall. The Spanish Conspiracy: A Review of Early Spanish Movements in the South-West. Cincinatti, OH: Robert Clarke and Co., 1891. Grimes, Theodore. Military Governments in California, 1846-1850, with a chapter on their prior use in Louisiana, Florida, and New Mexico. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark, 1963. Gudde, Erwin G. and Elizabeth K. Gudde, editors. California Gold Camps: a Geographical and Historical Dictionary of Camps, Towns, and Localities Where Gold Was Found and Mined, Wayside Stations and Trading Centers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1975. Hall, Christopher. ‘‘A Jefferson State of Mind.’’ Via, September 2003. Harrison, Lowell H. and James C. Klotter. A New History of Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1997. Harrison, Timothy. ‘‘Battle Ends in Stale-mate.’’ Lighthouse Digest, December 2004. Hauberg, Clifford A. Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974. Haycox, Stephen. Alaska: An American Colony. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2002. Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. Old Hickory’s War: Andrew Jackson and the Quest For Empire. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1996. Henderson, Archibald. The Conquest of the Old Southwest: The Romantic Story of the Early Pioneers into Virginia, The Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky 1740-1790. New York: The Century Co., 1920. Hesseltine, William B. A History of the South, 1607-1936. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1936. Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989. Hill, Henry Wayland, editor. Municipality of Buffalo, New York: A History, 1720-1923. New York: Lewis Historical Pub. Co., 1923. Hill, Ralph Nading. Yankee Kingdom: Vermont and New Hampshire. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973. Hoffmann, Mathias M. Antique Dubuque, 1673-1833. Dubuque, IA: Dubuque TelegraphHerald Press, 1930. Horn, Greg. ‘‘Ganienkeh celebrates 25th anniversary.’’ The Native Canadian, 8, no. 15 (May 7, 1999). Horn, Greg. ‘‘Ganienkeh since 1977.’’ The Native Canadian 8, no. 16 (May 14, 1999). Hornung, Nick. One Nation Under the Gun: Inside the Mohawk Civil War. New York: Pantheon, 1991. Hulley, Clarence C. Alaska Past and Present, Third Edition. Portland, OR: Binfords and Mort, 1970.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hunter, Stephen and John Jr. Bainbridge. American Gunfight: The Plot to Kill Harry Trumanand the Shoot-Out That Stopped It. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005. Insurance Journal. ‘‘Firm Told To Stop Selling Med Mal Liability in Ga.’’ Insurance Journal, April 4, 2003. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2003/04/04/27699. htm Irby, Richard E., Jr. The State of Westmoreland and the Pennamite-Yankee Wars. 1998. http://www. geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2691/pyw.html Jackson, Edwin L. James Edward Oglethorpe. In New Georgia Encyclopedia. 2005. http://www. georgiaencyclopedia.org James, D. Clayton. Antebellum Natchez. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1968. Jarvie, Jenny. ‘‘Strategizing a Christian Coup d’Etat.’’ Los Angeles Times, August 28, 2005. Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 17811789. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1981. Jime´nez de Wagenheim, Olga. Puerto Rico’s Revolt for Independence: El Grito de Lares. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985. Joesting, Edward. Hawaii: An Uncommon History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1972. Johansen, Dorothy O. Empire of the Columbia: A History of the Pacific Northwest, Second Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Johnson, Allen. ‘‘Jefferson and His Colleagues.’’ In Chronicles of America, vol. 15, edited by Allen Johnson. New York: R.A. Kessinger and Company, 1921. Johnson, Michael. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1999. Jones, John Morton. ‘‘Reflections of a Mainiac.’’ Redlands, CA: Redlands Fortnightly Club. Presented March 1, 2001. Jung, Pam. ‘‘A Fun Gold Town Called Rough And Ready.’’ The Union (Nevada County, CA), April 28, 2004. Kane, Douglas. ‘‘State Taxes and Spending: Who Gains, Who Loses?’’ Illinois Issues, June 1975, p. 185. Kardol, Rene. Proposed Inhabited Artificial Islands in International Waters: International Law Analysis in Regards to Resource Use, Law of the Sea and Norms of Self-Determination and State Recognition. MA thesis: University of Amsterdam, 1999. Karp, Abraham J. From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the Library of Congress. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1991. Katz, William Loren. Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. New York: Atheneum Books for Young Readers, 1986. Katz, William Loren. Breaking the Chains: African American Slave Resistance. New York: Atheneum, 1990. Kelley, Robin D.G. and Earl Lewis, editors. To Make Our World Anew, Volume 2: A History of African Americans Since 1880. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kelly, B.C. The Best Little Stories from the Civil War. Charlottesville, VA: Montpelier Publishing, 1994. Kephart, William M. and William W. Zellner. Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles, Fifth Edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Kifner, John. ‘‘Massachusetts Isles Wave Secession Flag.’’ New York Times, April 6, 1977. Kimball, Chris. ‘‘Tour of the Florida Territory During the Seminole (Florida) Wars, 17921859: Alachua County.’’ 2002. http://tfn.net/~cdk901/Index.htm. Kirsner, Scott. ‘‘Breakout Artist.’’ Wired, September 2000. Kleffman, Sandy. ‘‘Impassable roads led to secession movement.’’ Contra Costa Times, Sept. 24, 2000. Klement, Frank L. Wisconsin in the Civil War. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society, 1997.

229

230

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lacayo, Richard. ‘‘State of Siege: Can Federal Agents Capture Montana’s Band of Holed-up Freemen Without Triggering Another Waco?’’Time, April 8, 1996, p. 24. Lamar, Howard Roberts. Dakota Territory 1861-1889: A Study of Frontier Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956. Larson, T.A. History of Wyoming, 2nd Edition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1978. Lavender, David. Land of Giants: The Drive to the Pacific, 1750-1950. New York: Doubleday, 1958. Lavender, David. California: Land of New Beginnings. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1987. Leaming, Hugo Prosper. ‘‘The Ben Ishmael Tribe: A Fugitive ‘Nation’ of the Old Northwest,’’ inGone to Croatan: Origins of North American Dropout Culture, edited by Ron Sakolsky and James Koehnline. New York: Autonomedia, 1993. Leverett, Rudy H. Legend of the Free State of Jones. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press, 1984. Levin, Kate. ‘‘Vieques Aftermath.’’ The Nation, December 22, 2003. http://www.thenation. com/doc/20040105/levin Lewis, James. The Black Hawk War of 1832. 2000. http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/blackhawk/ index.html Lewis, Oscar, editor. This Was San Francisco: being First-Hand Accounts of the Evolution of One of America’s Favorite Cities. New York: David McKing Co., 1962. Lincoln Institute. Mr. Lincoln and New York. 2005. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org Linebaugh, Peter and Marcus Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000. Little Shell Tribe. Little Shell Tribe of Montana. 2006. http://www.littleshelltribe.com/ Lomask, Milton. Aaron Burr: The Conspiracy and Years of Exile, 1805-1836. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 1982. Lucas, Greg. ‘‘Vote to Split State Into 3 Is a Step Closer.’’ San Francisco Chronicle, June 11, 1993. Luebke, Frederick C. Nebraska: An Illustrated History. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. Lupton, John A. ‘‘This Week in Illinois History.’’ Illinois Political Journal, June 23-29, 2003. McAndrew, Mike. ‘‘A Land Deal is Struck: Ignoring Constitution, NY Pressures Onondagas to Sell Territory.’’ Syracuse Post-Standard, August 9, 2000. McCann, Dennis. ‘‘Winneconne’s Vote to Secede Put it On the Map, Again.’’ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 14, 1998. McCormick, Peter J. ‘‘The 1992 Secession Movement in Southwest Kansas.’’ Great Plains Quarterly 15, No. 4 (Fall 1995): 247. Maclean’s. ‘‘The Quiet Surrender of the Freemen.’’ Maclean’s, June 24, 1996, p. 29. McWilliams, Jane. History of Eastport. Eastport Historical Committee, 1993. Marley, David F. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1998. Martin, Joel W. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogee’s Struggle for a New World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1991. Martucci, David B. ‘‘Flags in Madawaska: Then and Now.’’ New England Journal of Vexillology, December, 1996. Mathews, Jay. ‘‘Winds of Secession Blow Through Northern California Valleys.’’ Washington Post, Dec. 29, 1991, p. A3. Mbulu, Mba. ‘‘The Republic of New Afrika.’’ 1999. http://www.asetbooks.com/Us/ Nationhood/RNA/RepublicOfNewAfrika.html Menefee, Samuel Pyatt. ‘‘Republics of the Reefs: Nation-Building on the Continental Shelf and in the World’s Oceans.’’ California Western International Law Journal 25: (1994): 81. Meras, Phyllis. ‘‘What’s Doing On MARTHA’S VINEYARD.’’ New York Times, July 3, 1977.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Meyer, Roy W. History of the Santee Sioux: United States Indian Policy on Trial. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. The Midwest Motorist. ‘‘Noel.’’ The Midwest Motorist, December 1970, p. 7. Miller, Thomas Condit and Hu Maxwell. West Virginia and its People. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1913. Miner, Charles. History of Wyoming, In a Series of Letters, from Charles Miner, to his Son William Penn Miner, Esq. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, 1845. Minnesota Alliance for Geographic Education. Landscape Change in East-Central Minnesota. 2005. http://www.macalester.edu/geography/mage/curriculum/gomn/ east_central_mn/ Minnesota House of Representatives. ‘‘Fishing dispute resolution.’’ Session Weekly 15, no. 10, March 27, 1998. Mize, Joel Sanford. The Story of Thornhill, Marion County, Alabama. 1997. http://joel.mize. home.comcast.net/genealogy/thillWhitehouse.htm Mosbaugh, R.C. McDonald County Courthouse Directory and Buyers Guide. Noel, MO: McDonald County Government, 1962. Mulkern, Larissa. ‘‘Secession Still Tool for Towns in Tax Debate.’’ The Hampton Union, September 30, 2001. Mullin, Gerald W. Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Naske, Claus M. A History of Alaska Statehood. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985. Nation of Hawai’i. Hawai’i- Independent and Sovereign. 2005. http://www.hawaii-nation.org National Fisheries Institute. ‘‘Fish Pfeisteria Creates Unwarranted Fears; Seafood Industry Asks Governors To Calm Citizens’ Concerns.’’ Press release, August 19, 1997. National Park Service. ‘‘Alcatraz Island.’’ 2002. http:/www.nps.gov/alcatraz/ Neiwert, David A. In God’s Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, 1999. Nester, William R. The Arikara War: The First Plains Indian War; 1823. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press, 2001. Nolan, Jenny. ‘‘The King of Beaver Island.’’ The Detroit News. 2002. http://info.detnews. com/history/story/index.cfm?id=81&category=life Norris, Frank B. Legacy of the Gold Rush: An Administrative History of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Seattle, WA: Government Printing Office, 1996. Northwest Culture.com. A History of the Artists’ Republic of Fremont. 2001. http://www. nwculture.com/NWC/CityDistricts/Fremont/1HP/history.html Olson, James C. and Ronald C. Naugle. History of Nebraska: Third Edition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Olson, James S., editor. Encyclopedia of American Indian Civil Rights. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Orr, Russell. ‘‘Tellico Plains Scene of Ill-Starred Indian Plot to Win Back America.’’ Zanesville Signal, June 27, 1943. Ostling, Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling. Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. New York: HarperCollins, 2000. Owsley, Frank Lawrence Jr., and Gene A. Smith. Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1997. Papadakis, Nikos. The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands. Leyden, Netherlands: Sifthoff International Publishing, 1977. Parker, Watson. Deadwood: The Golden Years. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1981. Petersen, Brian. History of the State of Jefferson. 2000. http://www.jeffersonstate.com/ jeffersonstory.html Podgers, James. ‘‘Greetings from independent Hawaii.’’ American Bar Association Journal, June 1997.

231

232

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Porter, Kenneth W. The Black Seminoles: History of a Freedom-Seeking People. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1996. Porter, Perry L. A Chronology of Federal Legislation on Polygamy. 1998. http://www.xmission. com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm Powell, Alan Kent. Utah History Encyclopedia. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1994. Powell v. McCormack. U.S. Supreme Court, 395 U.S. 486 (1989). Price, Catherine. The Oglala People, 1841-1879: A Political History. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Providence, City of. Providence: ’’Three and One-Half Centuries at a Glance’’. Providence, RI: City of Providence. 1998. http://www.providenceri.com/history.html Providence Journal. ‘‘Block Islanders Ride Great Moped Battle to Brink of Secession.’’ Providence Journal, Oct. 31, 1999. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994. Racine Journal Times. ‘‘State Snub on Maps Prompts Call to Secede.’’ Racine Journal Times, October 10, 1997. Radil, Amy. ‘‘The Northwest Angle.’’ Minnesota Public Radio, August 17, 1998. http://news. minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199808/17_radila_angle-m/ Regan, Eulalie. ‘‘The Gazette Chronicle.’’ Martha’s Vineyard Gazette. 2006. http://www. mvgazette.com Reinhardt, Julie. ‘‘Talking art and Fremont with Peter Bevis.’’ Seattle Press On-Line, 2004. http://archive.seattlepressonline.com/article-9327.html Remele, Larry. North Dakota History: Overview and Summary. Bismarck, ND: State Historical Society of North Dakota, 1988. Republic of Texas Interim Government. ‘‘The Republic of Texas Interim Government.’’ 2005. http://www.republic-of-texas.net/index2.shtml Rhode Island General Assembly. History of the Rhode Island General Assembly. 2004. http://www. rilin.state.ri.us/studteaguide/genhist.html Rice, Dan. ‘‘AIP Updates Its Image.’’ Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 14, 2004. Rice, Otis K. West Virginia: A History. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, 1985. Robertson, William Glenn et al. Atlas of the Sioux Wars. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, 2005. Robinson, Elwyn B. History of North Dakota. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1966. Robortella, John M. ‘‘The Field Notes of Col. Hugh Maxwell’s Pre-emption Line Survey in the Phelps and Gorham Purchase.’’ Crooked Lake Review, Spring 2004. Roosevelt, Theodore. New York: A Sketch of the City’s Social, Political, and Commercial Progress from the First Dutch Settlement to Recent Times. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906. Rosales, F. Arturo. Chicano! The History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press, 1996. Roske, Ralph J. Everyman’s Eden: A History of California. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Roth, Marshall. ‘‘Jewish Homeland in Western New York?’’ Aliyon, May 2000. Rough and Ready Chamber of Commerce. ‘‘Secession from the U.S.A.’’ 2002. http://www. roughandreadychamber.com. Sage, Leland L. A History of Iowa. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1974. San Francisco Chronicle. ‘‘Alaska’s Rural Areas Consider Breaking Away.’’ San Francisco Chronicle, July 3, 1992. San Francisco Chronicle. ‘‘Alaska Accuses U.S. of ‘Taking’ Park Lands.’’ San Francisco Chronicle, July 24, 1993. Scallon, Sean. ‘‘North Dakota’s Non-Partisan League.’’ Chronicles, February 2002. Scham Lutto, Rebecca. ‘‘South Jersey Secession: Two Views—An Unfunny Power Play.’’ New York Times, October 18, 1981, section 11, p. 36.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. The Age of Jackson. Old Saybrook, CT: Konecky and Konecky 1971. Shackleton, Robert. The Book of Chicago. Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Co., 1920. Sherry, Frank. Raiders and Rebels: The Golden Age of Piracy. New York: Hearst Marine Books, 1986. Simons, Paul Z. ‘‘Keep Your Powder Dry: Two Insurrections in Post-Revolutionary America.’’ In Gone to Croatan: Origins of North American Dropout Culture, edited by Ron Sakolsky and James Koehnline. Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 1993. Sinclair, David. Sir Gregor MacGregor and the Land That Never Was: The Extraordinary Story of the Most Audacious Fraud in History. New York: Da Capo, 2003. Siskiyou Daily Times. ‘‘Many Envoys Will Attend Mass Meeting,’’ Dec. 2, 1941. Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Smith, David Paul. ‘‘The Limits of Dissent and Loyalty in Texas’’ in Guerrillas, Unionists and Violence on the Confederate Home Front, edited by Daniel E. Sutherland. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 1999. Smith, William Jay. Army Brat: William Jay Smith, a Memoir. Ashland, OR: Story Line Press, 1991. Sneed, Michael. ‘‘Only King in US Contented in His Voodoo Kingdom.’’ Chicago Tribune, December 18, 1980. South Carolina Department of Archives and History. A Brief History of South Carolina. 2006. http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/homepage.htm Southern Poverty Law Center. ‘‘Born on the Bayou.’’ Intelligence Report, Spring 1999. Southwick, James. ‘‘State and Provincial Regulations With Cross-Border Impact.’’ Proceedings of the Canada-United States Law Institute Conference 27, 2001. Sramek, Jean. The Free Republic of Duluth: At Last, Real Candidates. February 10, 2005. MNArtists.org. http://www.mnartists.org/article.do?rid=59976. Stamper, John W. ‘‘Shaping Chicago’s Shoreline.’’ Chicago History 14, No. 4 (1985-6): 44-55. Steinreich, Stanley. ‘‘The South Rises Again—And Says It’s Serious.’’ New York Times, June 15, 1980, section 11, p. 2. Stephens, A. Ray and William M. Holmes. Historical Atlas of Texas. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989. Stevens, William Bacon. A History of Georgia, from its first discovery by Europeans to the adoption of the present constitution in 1798, vol. 2. Philadelphia: E.H. Butler and Company, 1859. Strauss, Erwin W. How To Start Your Own Country. Port Townshend, WA: Breakout Productions, Inc., 1999. Tate, Merze. The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965. Taylor, Quintard. In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 15281990. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998. Tebeau, Charlton W. A History of Florida. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1971. TenBruggencate, Jan. ‘‘Sovereignty Movement Has Many Turning Points.’’ Honolulu Advertiser, June 11, 2006. Tennenbaum, Barbara, editor. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Tessendorf, K. C. ‘‘Captain Streeter’s District of Lake Michigan.’’ Chicago History 5, No. 3 (1976): 152-160. Texas State Historical Association. ’’The Handbook of Texas Online.’’ 1999. http://www. tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/search Thomas, E. Bruce. Political Tendencies in Pennsylvania, 1783-1794. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1939.

233

234

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1979. Thompson, Charles Miner. Independent Vermont. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. Town of Newington, New Hampshire. Board of Selectmen Meeting minutes, July 31, 2001. Tristam, Pierre. ‘‘American Impressions: Maine—The Quiet Border.’’ The Lakeland Ledger, March 29, 1999. Trivette, Jerry. ‘‘Appalachian Summit: a Documentary History.’’ 2003. http:// appalachiansummit.tripod.com United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ravanna Sanders v. United States. 055028. May 18, 2005. United States v. Ray, Atlantis Development Corporation, Ltd., Intervenor. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 27888. 1970. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources. The Results of the 1998 Puerto Rico Plebiscite. Serial No. 106-A, Nov. 19, 1999. Universal Press Syndicate. ‘‘Chain of Vermont islands opens drive for secession.’’ January 2, 1979. Van de Water, Frederic F. The Reluctant Republic: Vermont, 1724-1791. New York: John Day Company, 1941. Van Wagoner, Richard S. Mormon Polygamy: A History. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1989. Verrill, A. Hyatt. Romantic and Historic Maine. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1936. Villanueva, A. B. ‘‘Western Illinois Regional Council: Supergovernment or its Antidote?’’ Illinois Issues, June 1976, p. 27. Virden, William. ‘‘The State of Colorado,’’ in The Uniting States: The Story of Statehood for the Fifty United States, Vol. 1, Alabama to Kentucky, edited by Benjamin F. Shearer. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004. Wallace, Anthony F.C. The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca. New York: Vintage Books, 1969. Wallace, David Duncan. South Carolina: A Brief History, 1520-1948. Charleston, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1961. Walsh, Richard and William L. Fox, editors. Maryland: A History, 1632-1974. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Historical Society, 1974. Ward, Harry M. The United Colonies of New England—1643-90. New York: Vantage Press, 1961. Warren, Harris Gaylord. The Sword Was Their Passport: A History of American Filibustering in the Mexican Revolution. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1943. Watauga Committee of Safety. ‘‘Petition to the Hon. the Provincial Council of North Carolina.’’ July 5, 1776. Watts, Thomas G. ‘‘McLaren rarely seen since late ’96.’’ Dallas Morning News, April 28, 1997. Westmoreland County Historical Society. A Short History of Westmoreland County. 1997. http:// www.lauffer.us/WestmorelandCountyHistory2.htm WGBH. Africans in America. ‘‘Florida’s Negro Fort.’’ 1998. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/ part3/3p1643.html Whittaker, Arthur Preston. The Mississippi Question 1795-1803: A Study in Trade, Politics, and Diplomacy. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1962. Williams, Mary Floyd. History of the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851. New York: Da Capo Press, 1969. Williams, Samuel Cole. Tennessee During the Revolutionary War. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Historical Commission, 1944. Williamson, William D. The History of Maine from Its First Discovery, A. D. 1602 to The Separation, A. D. 1820, Inclusive. Hallowell, ME: Glazier, Masters, and Company, 1832. Willis, William. The History of Portland, From 1632 To 1864: With a Notice of Previous Settlements Colonial Grants and Changes of Government in Maine. Portland, ME: Bailey and Noyes, 1865.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wisconsin Historical Society. Dictionary of Wisconsin History. 2006. https://www. wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/ Wood, Percy. ‘‘House Petition Asks Secession of Cook County.’’ Chicago Tribune, April 24, 1931. Wright, Charlie. ‘‘Around the Square.’’ Fulton County Daily Ledger, August 12, 2003. Wyndette, Olive. Islands of Destiny: A History of Hawaii. Tokyo: Voyager’s Press, 1968. Zapato, Lyle. The Republic of Cascadia. 2006. http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/ Zimmerman, Bill. Airlift to Wounded Knee. Chicago: Swallow Press, 1976.

235

Index Abalonia. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Abnaki, 69, 89–90 Absaroka. See Lincoln Territory (South Dakota) Acadia, 1. See also Madawaska Akwesasne. See Mohawk Nation Alamo, 186 Alaska, 1–6; Alaskan Independence Party and, 6; Aleut separatism in, 5–6; geography of, 1; land conflicts in, 5; native inhabitants of, 2, 5, 6; oil and separatism in, 5; Russian colonization of, 2–3; sectional conflicts within, 4; South Alaska statehood movement in, 4; as U.S. state, 5–6; as U.S. territory, 3–5 Alaskan Independence Party. See Alaska Albizu Campos, Pedro. See Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico Alcatraz Nation, 6–8 Alcatraz Security Force. See Alcatraz Nation Aleuts, 2–3, 6. See also Alaska Alianza Federal de Mercedes. See Aztla´n Allen, Ethan; 201–203, 223–224 Alvarado, Juan Miguel. See California Amelia Island. See East Florida American Indian Movement. See Dakota American Civil War; and separatism in Alabama, 217–218; and separatism in California, 25; and separatism in Maine, 106–107; and separatism in New York, 196; and separatism in Oregon, 137; and separatism in West Virginia, 210–211; and separatism in Wisconsin, 219–220; and Southern secession legends, 37, 218–219; in Oklahoma, 157; in the South, 164–167; in Texas, 190 American Revolution: in New England, 123– 124; in the South, 161–162 Anderson, William T. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Apalachicola Bay. See Negro Fort Ararat, 8–9

Aroostook County. See Acadia Aroostook War. See Madawaska Artificial islands. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Atlantis, Isle of Gold, 9–10 Aury, Louis, 47–48, 56, 182 Austin, Stephen, 183–186 Aztla´n, 10–13 Bacon Rebellion, 160 Barataria Bay. See Galveston Island Bear Flag Republic. See California Beaver Island, 15–16 Ben Ishmael. See Ishmaelites Bering, Vitus, 2 Black Hawk War, 95 Black Hills, Confederacy of the. See Dakota Black Hills, Territory of the. See Lincoln Territory Black nationalism. See New Afrika, Republic of; Ishmaelites; Slavery Black Panther Party, 120 ‘‘Bleeding Kansas’’, 164 Block Island, 16–17 Boon Island, 17–18 Bowles, William Augustus, 108–109 Burr, Aaron, 180–181 California, 19–27; early separatism under U.S. control, 24–25; independence from Mexico, 21–22; sectional tensions within, 26. See also Jefferson, State of; San Francisco Callaway, Kingdom of. See Winston County Campeche. See Galveston Island Carson’s Valley, 27–29 Cascadia. See Oregon Champ d’Asile, 183. See also Texas. Cherokee Nation, 29–31. See also Paradise, Kingdom of Cheyenne, 39, 42. See also Dakota Chicago, State of, 31–32. See also Lake Michigan, Free District of

238 Childs, John, 75 Chippewa Territory. See Huron Territory Christian Exodus, 174. See also South Carolina Cimarron Territory, 32–33 Civil War. See American Civil War Colorado (proposed state in California), 25 Columbia, State of, 25, 33–35. See also California Columbus Territory. See Carson’s Valley Comanches, 180, 187–188 Committee of Vigilance. See San Francisco Conch Republic, 35 Confederate States of America. See South, the Congreso de Aztla´n. See Aztla´n Cook County. See Chicago, State of Cortes Bank. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Creek. See Muskogee Cumberland Association, 36. See also Transylvania; Watauga Dade County, 37 Dakota, 37–43; expansion and conflict with U.S., 37–39; independence movement since 1975, 42–43; on reservations, 39–43; Wounded Knee siege, 41–42 Deadwood. See Lincoln Territory Denver, Provisional Government of. See Jefferson Territory Deseret, 102–105. See also Mormons Dismal Swamp. See Great Dismal Swamp Dorr, Thomas. See Rhode Island Dubuque. See Miner’s Compact East Florida, 45–48 Eastern Shore, 48–50 Eastport, Maritime Republic of, 50 Egg Harbor. See South Jersey El Dorado, Territory of. See Lincoln Territory Fernandina. See East Florida Florida Republic. See East Florida Forgottonia, 51 Franklin, 52–53 Fredonia, Republic of. See Texas Freedom City; 120. See also New Afrika, Republic of Freemen. See Justus Township; Patriot movements Fremont, Artists’ Republic of, 54 French and Indian War: impact on New

England, 123; impact on the South, 160– 161 Galveston Island, 55–57 Ganienkeh, 97–98. See also Mohawk Nation Garvey, Marcus, 118–119 Goliad Massacre, 187–188 Grand and Triumph Reefs. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Grand Capri Republic. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Grand Isle, 94 Grande Terre. See Galveston Great Dismal Swamp, 58–60 Green Mountain Boys. See Vermont, Republic of Guilford Rebellion, 202–203 Harris, Buckner, 46 Hartford Convention, 126–127. See also New England Hawaii, 61–67; before European discovery, 61; growing power of foreigners in Kingdom of, 63–64; modern nationalism in, 66–67; Republic of, 64–65; unification of, 62–63 Henderson, William, 36, 52, 194–195, 207 Hickel, Wally, 6 Hispanic separatism. See Mexican-American separatism Houston, Samuel, 186–190 Huron Territory, 67–68 Idaho. See Columbia, State of; Jefferson Territory Indian Stream, Republic of, 69–71 Ishmaelites, 71–73 Jackson, Andrew, 115–116, 188 U.S.S. Jalisco. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Jayuya Rebellion, 145 Jefferson, State of, 75–76 Jefferson Territory, 76–77 Jones, Free State of. See Winston County Joseph, City of. See Mormons Joy, Henry, 1 Justus Township, 77–78 Kahnawake. See Mohawk Nation Kamen, Dean, 131–132 Kanawha. See West Virginia Kanesatake. See Mohawk Nation Kanienkahake. See Mohawk Nation

239 Kemper, Samuel, 208–209 Kentucky, 79–80. See also Franklin, Transylvania Key West. See Conch Republic Kingdom of God on Earth. See Beaver Island Kinney, 80–81 Klamath. See Jefferson, State of Lady Elgin. See Wisconsin Lafitte, Jean, 47, 55–57, 182–184 Lake Michigan, Free District of, 83–84 Lakota. See Dakota Langer, William, 130–131 Lassen County. See California Libertarianism. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Lincoln Territory, 84–86 Little Shell Pembina Band of North America, 86–87 Livingston, John, 134–135 Lo´pez Tijerina, Reies. See Aztla´n Louds Island. See Muscongus Island McDonald Territory, 89 McGillivray, Alexander, 108 MacGregor, Gregor, 46–48 Madawaska, Republic of, 89–91 Maine, 91–93. See also Acadia, State of, Madawaska, Republic of Maroons. See Slavery Martha’s Vineyard, 93–94 Maryland. See Eastern Shore Mexican-American separatism. See Aztla´n; California; Texas Militia movements. See Patriot movements Mina, Francisco, 56 Miner’s Compact, 94–96 Minerva. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Mohawk Nation, 96–98 Mormons, 99–106; Deseret and the Utah War, 104–105. early Mormonism, 99–100; migration to Utah, 102–103; settlement in Ohio and Missouri, 100–101, settlement at Nauvoo, 101–102; See also Beaver Island Mount Vernon District. See Jefferson Territory Muscongus Island, 106–107 Muskogee, 107–111 Nantucket. See Martha’s Vineyard Natchez, 113–114 Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico, 144–146. See also Puerto Rico Nauvoo, 101–102. See also Mormons

Negro Fort, 114–116 Nevada. See Carson’s Valley New Afrika, Republic of, 116–121 New Connecticut. See Vermont New England, 121–127; Hartford Convention, 126–127; New England, Dominion of, 122; New England Confederation, 122 New Hampshire: involvement with Indian Stream controversy, 69–71; New York City. See Tri-Insula Newington, 127–129 Nickajack. See Winston County Noah, Mordecai. See Ararat Non-Partisan League (North Dakota), 130– 131 Norte, Republica del. See Aztla´n North Dakota, 129–131 North Dumpling, 131–132 Northwest Angle, 132 Nullification Crisis. See South Carolina Oakes, Richard. See Alcatraz Nation Oglala Sioux Nation. See Dakota ‘Ohana Council. See Hawaii Oklahoma. See Cherokee Nation; Cimarron Territory; Muskogee; Sequoyah Ontario, 133–135 Oregon, 135–138; modern secessionism, 138; provisional government of, 136–137; secessionists before the Civil War, 137 Oyotunji, 138–139 Pacific Republic, 25, 137 Paradise, Kingdom of, 141–142 Patriot movements. See Justus Township; Little Shell Pembina Band; Texas, Republic of; Washitaw Patriot Rebellion, 46 Paxtang Rangers. See Wyoming Valley Piracy. See East Florida; Galveston Platform nations. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Ponce Massacre, 145 Posse Comitatus. See Patriot movements Priber, Johann. See Paradise, Kingdom of Privateering; Piracy Puerto Rico, 142–147; as Commonwealth, 148; Nationalist Party and rebellion, 146– 148 Randall, Alexander. See Wisconsin Ray, Louis. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Reconstruction, 117–118, 167–168

240 Regulators, 206 Revolutionary Action Movement. See New Afrika, Republic of Revolutionary War. See American Revolution Rhode Island, 149–151. See also Block Island Rough and Ready, Great Republic of, 151– 152 Rye. See Newington

191–192, Republica de Tejas, 181–182; War of Texas Independence, 186–188; Tlingits, 2, 4 Town Line. See Dade County Trans-Oconee Republic, 193–194 Transylvania, 194–195 Tri-Insula, Free City of, 196–197 Truman, Harry, 145

San Francisco, 153–156 San Joaquin, Republic of. See Aztla´n Santa Anna, Antonio Lo´pez de, 185–189 Sauk and Fox, 94–96 Segregation, 117–119, 168–169 Seminoles, 46 Sequoyah, State of, 156–157. See also Cherokee Nation, Muskogee Sevier, John, 52–53, 207 Shasta. See Jefferson, State of Sioux. See Dakota slavery: rebellion against, 58–60, 114–117; role in Southern identity, 164, 167–168 Smith, Joseph. See Mormons South, the, 158–169; American Civil War and the Confederacy, 165–167; growing sectionalism in, 163–165; modern secessionism in, 169; Reconstruction in, 167–168; secession of, 164–166; South Alaska, 4. See also Alaska South Carolina, 169–174; Nullification Crisis in, 171–172 South Jersey, 174–175 South Nebraska, 175–176 Sovereign citizen movements. See Patriot movements States’ rights: and New England secessionism, 126–127; and Oregon, 138 Stono Rebellion, 170 Strang, Joseph. See Beaver Island Streeter, George ‘‘Cap’’, 83–84 Superior, 176–177

Upper Peninsula. See Superior Utah. See Mormons Utah War, 103–104

Taluga. See Atlantis, Isle of Gold Texas, 179–193; American Civil War and, 190; Fredonia rebellion, 184–185; James Long expedition, 183–184; Mexican War and, 189; Reconstruction and, 190–191; Republic of Texas (Patriot movement),

Vandalia, 199–200 Vermont, Republic of, 200–203 Vicksburg. See Dade County War of 1812: Block Island’s neutrality during, 16–17; impact on New England, 125–127; Jean Lafitte’s role in, 55–56 War of Texas Independence, 186–188 War of Whiskey Point. See Beaver Island Washitaw, 205–206 Watauga Association, 206–207 West Feliciana. See West Florida West Florida, 207–209 West Kansas, 209–210 West Virginia, 210–211 Westmoreland, State of, 224. See also Wyoming Valley Westmoreland County. See Whiskey Rebellion Westsylvania, 212–213. See also Whiskey Rebellion Whiskey Rebellion, 211–216 Wilkinson, James, 79–80, 180–181 Winn Parish. See Winston County Winneconne, 216–217 Winston County (Free State of Winston), 217–219 Wisconsin, 219–220 Wood, Fernando. See Tri-Insula, Free City of Wounded Knee. See Dakota Wyoming Valley, 220–224 Yankee-Pennamite Wars. See Wyoming Valley Yoruba Village. See Oyotunji Young, Brigham. See Mormons

About the Author

JAMES L. ERWIN is an independent scholar. His work has also been published by McSweeney’s. He lives in Des Moines, IA.