Us Presidents and The Destruction of The Native American Nations 1St Ed 2021 Edition Michael A Genovese All Chapter

US Presidents and the Destruction of
the Native American Nations 1st ed.

2021 Edition Michael A. Genovese
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/us-presidents-and-the-destruction-of-the-native-ameri
can-nations-1st-ed-2021-edition-michael-a-genovese/
THE EVOLVING AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
US Presidents and the

Destruction of the
Native American Nations
Michael A. Genovese · Alysa Landry
Foreword by Russell Begaye

The Evolving American Presidency
Series Editors
Michael A. Genovese, Loyola Marymount University,
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Todd L. Belt, Graduate School of Political Management, George
Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
This series is stimulated by the clash between the presidency as invented
and the presidency as it has developed. Over time, the presidency has
evolved and grown in power, expectations, responsibilities, and authority.
Adding to the power of the presidency have been wars, crises, depressions,
industrialization. The importance and power of the modern presidency
makes understanding it so vital. How presidents resolve challenges and
paradoxes of high expectations with limited constitutional resources is the
central issue in modern governance and the central theme of this book
series.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14437
Michael A. Genovese · Alysa Landry
US Presidents
and the Destruction
of the Native
American Nations
Foreword By Russell Begaye
Michael A. Genovese Alysa Landry
Political Science and International School of Arts, Humanities, and
Relations English
Loyola Marymount University Diné College
Los Angeles, CA, USA Tsaile, AZ, USA
The Evolving American Presidency

ISBN 978-3-030-83573-6 ISBN 978-3-030-83574-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83574-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Andrew Jackson as the Great Father, courtesy of William L. Clements
Library, University of Michigan
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
When researching how U.S. Presidents or U.S. Congress developed

American Indian policies, it’s important to understand that Indian Nation
leaders have always attempted to help shape these policies—but often to
no avail. Historically, some presidents more than others have attempted
to listen to these Indian leaders, but in the end, even the most conscien-
tious presidents revert to their own agendas, which largely ignore Native
Americans in favor of other priorities.
As a Native American advocate and, later, as an elected leader of the
country’s largest Indian Nation, I have met with half a dozen sitting U.S.
Presidents. It is disheartening for Native Americans to sit before a Presi-
dent or a member of Congress and see unrelenting stone faces as elected
leaders either try to understand our perspective or, worse, seek to convince
us to accept an alternate agenda.
Today, Native Americans comprise only 2.5% of the total U.S. popu-
lation. Our numbers are not what they once were. Yet, beginning with
George Washington and continuing to the present, we have always sought
a seat at the table where decisions are being made. Since before the United
States was established, Native Americans have traveled long distances to
request an audience with federal leaders—a gesture only a few Presidents
have returned by visiting us on our lands. Too often, these meetings in
federal buildings have resulted in simply a nice trip, a good meal, and
the opportunity to shake the President’s hand and pose for a photo.
v
vi FOREWORD
Our desire is to engage in real dialog and authentic government-to-

government agreements. Instead, too often, we return home without
hope. Decisions are still being made without us. Lengthy pieces of legis-
lation often dedicate a single sentence—or less—to Native Americans.
Federal executives and lawmakers may consult with tribes, but their
consultation is just a box to check off and move on. This has been the
status quo for centuries. We have not been heard.
In the end, we know that a law or a policy will be written that will
diminish our rights, take away our land and resources, steal our water,
disrespect our culture, or keep us on our “reservations.”
History tells us that, despite our best attempts to consult with the
federal government, we will return home to find that a new law has
been passed and we will be forced to move, or we’ve lost authority over
something, or another freedom has been eroded. Time and again, federal
policies yield negative results for tribes.
But in the end, every Indian Nation leader knows that their people
have been here before the birth of the United States and they will be here
long after. Our teachings on how to live in harmony with all of creation
will sustain as through the coming centuries. Our respect and practice of
our culture will continue to give us good, enjoyable, and healthy lives.
Indian Nations have survived the policies of every U.S. President since
George Washington and they will continue to flourish in their own way
under every coming president and their policies. Yes, our leaders will
continue to communicate with presidents and members of Congress to try
and help them develop policies that will honor us as Nations. The pres-
ident that develops a Council of Tribal Leaders imbedded in the White
House and halls of Congress will have taken a historical step to develop
and implement Indian Nation policies that honor our people.
This book traces the history of past U.S. Presidents and their attitudes
and policies toward Native Americans. The research presented here will
help future Native leaders understand the mindset of past presidents, and
to hold future presidents accountable for better relationships. This book
should be read and studied by tribal leaders and academics who want to
understand the development of federal Indian policy. It should also be
read by state and federal lawmakers—both current and future—who will
FOREWORD vii
need to know the history of federal–tribal relationships as they author the

Indian policies of the next era.
Window Rock, AZ, USA Russell Begaye

Navajo Nation Council Delegate,
2011–2015, Navajo Nation President,
2015–2019
Preface
Michael Genovese remembers sitting in a college freshman U.S. history

class many, many years ago. Early in the semester, the professor, a Chris-
tian Brother named Ronald Isetti, began his lecture about the arrival of
the first Europeans onto America’s shores. In the most memorable line of
the entire freshman year, he said, “The first thing the Puritans did when
they arrived on our shores was to fall on their knees; the second thing they
did is fall on the Indians.” This got more than the usual required polite
chuckle. But he then brought the class to silence when he asked us to
finish the phrase “The only good Indian is...” to which we all responded,
“a dead Indian.” What would that signify to us? It was, we realized, a
phrase baked into our psyches. He then asked us to imagine what it might
have been like if that phrase referred to OUR ancestors? How might that
have shaped our lives and sense of self-worth?
Alysa Landry remembers sitting in her seventh-grade classroom waiting
anxiously to discover whether she’d survived her most recent move in the
computer game The Oregon Trail. As a white pre-teen, it never occurred
to her to question her role in the game: a white settler facing questions
about what kind of wagon to take; what supplies to buy; how fast to
travel; whether to use horses, oxen or mules; and whether to interact with
people encountered along the trail. Her objective was to travel safely from
Independence, Missouri, to the Oregon Territory, overcoming obstacles
and achieving a “new life in the new territories.” She never had to consider
the fact that, by default, every player was given a white identity. The only
ix
x PREFACE
way to win The Oregon Trail is to be white. It took a quarter of a century

before Alysa learned to question the game, or the realities it presented.
What must it be like to grow up Native in America, and to learn a version
of history that celebrates the white victor, the white settler, the white
trespasser? How does America’s “Founding Myth” affect the people who
have been deleted from history?
Los Angeles, USA Michael A. Genovese

Tsaile, AZ, USA Alysa Landry
Acknowledgements
Many people beyond the co-authors of this book gave of themselves to

bring this project to completion. Editors, proof-readers, typists (special
thanks here to Noura Alavi, typist extraordinaire; and Leeanne Root,
editor, fact-checker, and friend), researchers, copyeditors, manuscript
reviewers, and others made this a group-project. We thank you all for
your hard work and professionalism.
While writing is a very solitary art, writers are not islands. We live in this
world and are impacted by the world around us. This book was written
during the deep isolation of the coronavirus pandemic. We were each
hunkered down, one at home in Los Angeles, the other in Farmington,
New Mexico. And while writing is an isolated activity, we were isolated
with others. Michael Genovese had very good fortune to be sequestered-
in-place with a wonderful wife, Gabriela (who gave me the gift of guilt-
free writing time) and the Tres Perros Locos, three crazy dogs: Frank,
better known as “Oompa Loompa” (I don’t know why), Zazu, better
known as “little stinker” (because she is), and Lucca, whom we call “Little
Man.” They made social isolation and writing bearable and at times joyful.
They are my everything.
Alysa Landry practiced social distancing in Farmington, N.M., where
she taught online courses at Diné College while sitting on the floor in her
home office. Her husband, Ray, who has always granted her the time and
space needed to write, took on most of the domestic duties so she could
xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
focus on this book. Cedar, their two-year-old golden retriever, took long
naps under Alysa’s desk.
Author’s note: Portions of this manuscript were previously published
as news articles by Indian Country Today Media Network.
Contents
1 Introduction: Building an “Empire of Reason”

on Stolen Land 1
2 Europeans Arrive in the (Not-So) New World 9
3 The Founding Era: Establishing Relations—George
Washington to John Quincy Adams 27
4 The Jacksonian Hammer: Andrew Jackson to James
Buchanan 67
5 Civil War and Manifest Destiny: Abraham Lincoln
to Benjamin Harrison 105
6 America: A World/Imperial Power—William McKinley
to Herbert Hoover 139
7 The Rise of the Global Superpower: FDR to Kennedy 171
8 The Civil Rights Era and Beyond: Bypassing Native
Americans—Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump 197
9 Conclusion 251
Index 255
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Approach to Native Americans 6

Table 1.2 Policy options 6
xv
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: Building an “Empire of Reason”

on Stolen Land
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government
treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the
twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick,
the needy and the handicapped.
—Former U.S. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey1
One would be hard-pressed to give the government of the United States a

passing grade if the measure applied to its relations with the Native Amer-
icans were the Humphrey Test. In over 230 years, in test after test, by
generation after generation, under president after president, our govern-
ment has almost always failed to treat Native populations with dignity,
fairness, and generosity, or even grant them basic legal rights. Instead,
the indigenous peoples of North America for centuries were seen as sub-
human savages, treated unfairly, dealt with through broken promises and
violence, and nearly exterminated.
This book is about how America’s presidents, from George Wash-
ington to Donald Trump, have treated the Native American people who
were living on the lands that became the United States, land they occu-
pied long before the arrival of Europeans. It is not always a pretty picture.
In fact, most of this story deals with the one-sided imposition of harsh and
inhumane policies by the powerful against the powerless. It is a story of
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
M. A. Genovese and A. Landry, US Presidents and the Destruction
of the Native American Nations, The Evolving American
Presidency, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83574-3_1
2 M. A. GENOVESE AND A. LANDRY
how power is used and misused, and it demonstrates that might does not
always make right.
It is also a story of revolution, evolution, conquest, submission,
violence, injustice, cruelty, racism, and genocide,2 where a “master race”
felt free to impose a harsh rule on peoples often believed to be inferior or
inhuman. And some of history’s presidential “heroes” reveal themselves
to be painfully “human;” with feet of clay.
Why is this story important? Because it reveals a portion of truth about
who we are and how we came to be that way: It reveals our capacity for
good and evil, generosity and cruelty. When confronted by a relatively
weak and vulnerable group of people who were “different,” and who
stood in the way of our goals, we often responded not by being guided by
the “better angels” of our spirits, but by greed, violence, and raw power.
We must face up to some dark historical truths. Our original sins of
slavery and Native American genocide should be seen in conjunction with
the democratic myths upon which we are founded. A nation founded on
calls to freedom and equality was a slave state. The Declaration of Inde-
pendence inspired political movements across the globe, while at home,
our growth was centered in white supremacy and colonial domination.
The new nation threw off the colonial yolk of British domination yet
we did not learn our own lesson in our treatment of slaves and indigenous
peoples. We did not practice what we preached.3 The “master narrative”
was one of the American empires of freedom marching forward. But that
march was built on slave labor and genocide against native peoples. Our
counter-narrative is designed to bring that story into balance; to recognize
the achievements along with the crimes.
Along the way you may ask yourselves, how could so civilized a people
be so barbaric? What excuse or reason did we give for our behavior?
The simple fact is that we chose to dehumanize both the African slaves
brought to the new world, and the Native people we found in this new
land. It is, in this way, an old and a sadly universal story.
When Europeans came to “the New World,” they faced a people who
were already settled across the land, and who came to be referred to
as Indians on the mistaken impression that Europeans had discovered
a route to India. The tribal nations had long histories, sophisticated
societies, complex governments, rich traditions, and a deeply rooted
connection to “place.” The Europeans, when they realized that they had
not found India, began to see the potential in this new land for resource
1 INTRODUCTION: BUILDING AN “EMPIRE OF REASON” … 3
extraction, colonization, and imperial conquest. They settled along the

eastern seaboard, and from the beginning, squeezed out the indigenous
populations to make room for “establishing civilization” in this “savage”
New World.
It was not long before clashes—often violent—and demands for land
led to conflicts with most of the indigenous peoples who were reluctant
to pick up and leave their generational homes to make room for these
new settlers. As the British—the most powerful nation in the world at
that time—developed colonies, clashes between settlers and Native popu-
lations increased. Competition also raged among the British, French, and
Spanish, all of whom had imperial ambitions for the new land, and each
of whom made and then broke alliances with tribal nations, changed
alliances and made war, changed alliances again, and set one European
nation against another, always with the help of one Native group or
another, and always with the promise that an alliance with one tribal
nation would lead to the protection of their lands and the maintenance
of their ways of life. These promises were found to be worthless, as each
European power saw the indigenous populations as pawns in the larger
games of imperial conquest and global power politics.
When the American revolutionary forces finally “liberated” the new
land from foreign domination (as the colonists viewed their situation),
one problem was settled (for a time) and another (what to do with the
Native populations) came into high relief. With the creation of the new
government of the United States, one of the most pressing problems was
in dealing with the tribal nations. What may be surprising to many is that
the new government spent a great deal of time trying to sort out a policy
toward the many tribes that populated the country, and how they could
reconcile their revolutionary rhetoric about equality, individual rights, the
rule of law, and the search for justice, with their goals of settling the land,
limiting violence and war, fending off rival European powers (the British
were still in control of the land north of the new nation, and the Spanish
controlled the land to the south), and then expanding westward. It would
prove to be a difficult balancing act.
Because of the vast frontier, this new nation was being constantly
reborn and renewed. With consistently changing borders, the country
could feel limitless—as long as white settlers could claim the land. Go
West, find a rebirth of freedom, redefine yourself, and let nothing stand
in the way of progress. This ethos spelled doom for tribal nations in the
Americas.
This book deals with how the U.S. government, through the lens of
presidential leadership, tried to come to grips with the many and complex
issues pertaining to the plight of the indigenous peoples who were here
when the Europeans arrived. Government—Native American relations
highlight many of the core contradictions and difficulties the new nation
faced as it tried to establish itself as a legitimate independent nation, while
fending off rival European powers and dealing with tribal nations who had
a moral if not a strictly legal right to the lands they historically occupied
but that the settlers wanted. Additional challenges included:
• relations between the federal and state governments (often at odds

over Indian policy),
• the role of genocide, war, and violence in the making of this new
nation,
• separation of powers issues within the new government (the presi-
dent’s power to “make” treaties comes from Washington trying to
work with the Senate in the “advise and consent” role in making
treaties with Native American tribes),
• trying to build a true union where interests between the North and
the South often clashed,
• why a standing army was needed,
• the role of militias in the new government,
• what it meant to be truly “human” in a legal and practical way
(“savages” like Africans were not seen as truly human),
• the role of westward expansion and manifest destiny,
• how diplomacy and war interacted,
• what the character of the new nation would be in the face of the
challenges posed by the Native American tribes and nations.
So many of these questions were raised at the very beginning of the

republic, and George Washington confronted and spent a tremendous
amount of time trying to sort out the complexities of competing interest
and values. But every president confronted questions about how to solve
the “Indian problem.” While early presidents like Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson set the tone for relationships between the
federal government and tribal nations, every president is part of this story.
This longitudinal study unpacks the choices presidents made. Presidents
are not fully free to choose; they work within historical and structural
parameters, but they do make choices, decisions, up or down, yes or no,

go here or go there.
In their 2016 book All the Real Indians Died Off (Beacon Press)
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Dina Gilia-Whitaker debunk the myth that
“U.S. Presidents were benevolent or at least fair minded toward Indians,”
claiming that mainstream America has no idea how the vast majority of
U.S. presidents felt about Native Americans, or how specific actions indi-
vidual presidents took impacted America’s indigenous people. In fact,
Dunbar-Ortiz and Gilio-Whitaker argue, with very few exceptions, that
presidents treated Indians as a “problem” that needed to be solved. Even
presidents like Calvin Coolidge, who in 1924 extended to all Native
Americans the right to vote, viewed such measures as tools to assimilate
Native Americans into mainstream culture.
In this book, we deal chronologically with all the presidents from
George Washington to Donald Trump. In the end, we ask what relations
between the government and the Native peoples tell us about who we are
and how we operate as a people and as a nation.
America’s Two Original Sins

Throughout its history, America has been hounded by, perplexed with,
and troubled by its inability to come to grips with and bring resolution to
its racial history. America’s two original sins are slavery and its treatment
of the Native populations.
The White European settlers, guilty of genocide and enslavement , were
able to take command of the New World, exploit people and resources,
develop a cheap-labor economy, and expand westward by displacing and
killing Native populations and enslaving abducted Africans.
Today, the nation continues to feel the effects of these sins as we
struggle to reconcile our past with our ideals. “We hold these truths to
be self-evident that all men are created equal.” The only way to recon-
cile those words with our treatment of Native and black populations is
to dehumanize entire peoples. Such dehumanization has implications for
both the conqueror and the conquered. Life as sinner or subjugated,
winner or loser, creates poisoned relationships and toxic politics. And we
suffer still from the sins of the fathers as we attempt to heal centuries-old
wounds. Victor and vanquished alike suffer today from these original sins.
These exploitative relationships, applied against people of color, had to

be rationalized and made acceptable to the stated goals of the dominant
class. Thus, a racialist theory of superiority permeated and justified the
“right” of one group to exploit, and even eliminate, others. The sense
of Christian common humanity gave way to a quasi-scientific doctrine
of hierarchically ordered racial species. The “civilized” Europeans saw
themselves in contrast to lower orders. Such dichotomies and hierarchical
thinking permitted Whites to declare common humanity while simultane-
ously practicing racial discrimination, or as Mannoni noted, “the Calibans
served psychic as well as material functions for the Prosperous.”4
The early American presidents spent time and political energy devel-
oping federal Indian policies. And the indigenous peoples of the Americas
faced the inevitable clash between traditional ways and the demands of the
new settlers.5 John Locke, who had such a powerful impact on the writers
of the U.S. Constitution, noted of the new world: “In the beginning, all
the world was America.”6 Seeing in these Native peoples man in the state
of nature, the colonists were torn between a desire to “civilize” these
primitives or merely displace them. Were these Native people salvageable
or disposable? (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2).
Settlers came to the New World and confronted Native inhabitants. In
order to grow and expand their control over these new lands, something
had to be done with (or to) the Native populations. A clash was inevitable,
and expansion west would become a key characteristic of the history of
the United States. American development necessitated Indian destruction.
Table 1.1 Approach

Paternal Fraternal Fratricidal
to Native Americans
Table 1.2 Policy options
Accommodate Assimilate Regulate Delegate Subordinate Exterminate
Accept Domesticate Reservations To states

Indoctrinate Bureau
Notes
1. Remarks at the dedication of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building,
November 1, 1977; see: Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, Vol.
123, p. 37287.
2. Madley, Bejamin. An American Genocide, Yale University Press, 2017.
3. Kolsky, Elizabeth. “It Is Time to Reconsider the Global Legacy of July 4,
1776,” The Washington Post, July 3, 2020.
4. Mannoni, Octave. Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization,
University of Michigan Press, 1990.
5. Axtell, James. The European and the Indian: Essays in the Ethnohistory of
Colonial North America, Oxford University Press, 1982; Jennings, Frances.
The Invasion of America, University of North Carolina Press, 1975; and
Nash, Gary. Red, White, and Black: The Peoples of Early America, Pearson,
2014.
6. Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government, Cambridge University Press,
1988.
CHAPTER 2
Europeans Arrive in the (Not-So) New World
Was there room for everyone? Vast, seemingly unexplored lands stretched
into the West, and European settlers set their sights on expansion and
development. But if the land was vast, it was also the home of indige-
nous populations uninterested in merely stepping aside and allowing their
ancestral lands to be gobbled up by these newcomers.
Settling their new land would be a challenge, especially given the
fact that the British, French, and Spanish all had imperial ambitions in
this New World. Battles between these European powers often involved
temporary and shifting alliances with tribal nations.
As Europeans began to colonize the New World, they came face-to-
face with a land populated by independent, sovereign tribes intent on
maintaining their sovereignty and control over their lands. With the arrival
of Christopher Columbus to the Americas came both the birth of the
United States’ origin story (Puritan settlers who had a Covenant with
God arrived at the new land God had ordained for their use), and the
confirmation of the “Doctrine of Discovery,” (deriving from papal bulls
from the late fifteenth century) wherein Europeans were entitled to the
lands they “discovered,” leaving the indigenous populations displaced.1
It was also the beginning of what would become a pattern: Anglo-
European settlers would claim indigenous populations’ land and, if the

Switzerland AG 2022
Indians refused to leave, conflict, violence, and struggle for land would
come to characterize relations. Race and power, not loyalty or justice,
would guide virtually all interactions.
Native Governments
Much has been written about the European roots of the American Consti-
tution, but little has been written about the role of tribal nations in the
development of the Constitution. This oversight neglects the important
contribution made by Native Americans to the invention of the American
system. The framers of the Constitution drew on their knowledge of the
Iroquois Confederacy for guidance in the development of a separation of
powers system.
On July 27, 1787, the drafting committee of the Constitutional
Convention met at the Indian Queen Tavern, in Philadelphia, to agree on
a draft of a Constitution to submit to the full convention. The commit-
tee’s chair, John Rutledge of South Carolina, opened the meeting by
reading aloud an English translation of the Iroquois’ tale of the founding
of the Iroquois Confederacy. Rutledge’s goal was to underscore the
importance, for the new nation, of a concept embedded in the tradition
of the Iroquois Confederacy: “We” the people, from whence all power
derives.2 This concept also has European roots, but nowhere in the old
world was it being practiced. The neighbors of the Constitution’s framers,
however, had, for decades, been living under a Constitution that brought
this concept to life.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution drew insight and inspiration from
a number of sources: European philosophers, such as John Locke, ancient
Athenian democracy and the Roman Republics, the experience of state
governments, and the Native American forms of government with which
they were very familiar. No one would argue that the Native Americans
provided a blueprint, but (usually lost in the history books) it is clear
that they did provide some examples which the framers sought to emulate
and incorporate into the new government. As was the case with Euro-
pean influences, the framers engaged in “selective borrowing” from the
governments of many Native nations. As George F. Carter writes:
No civilization arose in isolation, as the flowing genius of a single people.

Great civilizations illustrate that genius lies in the ability of a group of
2 EUROPEANS ARRIVE IN THE (NOT-SO) NEW WORLD 11
persons to assemble ideas borrowed from far and wide into some new
pattern suited to their needs, tastes, and opportunities.3
Given the hundreds of tribal nations that populated the Americas, it

should come as no surprise that the styles and structures of government
varied widely. Plus, the many indigenous people in the New World were
not monolithic. Having said this, one is struck by certain common themes
or styles that seem to cross most regions and tribes. The indigenous
nations practiced a variety of different forms of governance. Each was
self-governing and autonomous. And while many shared common rituals
and a spiritual connection to the land, their governing mechanisms varied.
Most reached agreement after widespread discussion and the arrival at a
group consensus.
The tribal governing system most familiar to the American Framers
was the Iroquois Confederacy, or the Haudenosaunee people, who were
governed by The Great Law.4 They had been practicing a form of democ-
racy for 15 generations by the time European settlers arrived on the shores
of America.
The Iroquois Confederacy

One of the most sophisticated of the Native American governing systems
was the Iroquois Confederacy. Made up of the Mohawk, Oneida,
Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca tribes (by the early eighteenth century
the Tuscarora joined the confederacy), what is most striking about this
confederacy is the way it practiced a form of egalitarian, even democratic
politics, while uniting disparate tribes. “In an age of European monar-
chies and absolutism, the Indians’ constitution… was based on principles
of individual freedom and government by consent of the governed that
white men themselves did not enjoy.”5
The Iroquois Confederacy was a kinship state, bound together by a
clan and chieftain system. This system began with the “hearth,” where
ancestry was traced through the mother. Each hearth was a part of a
larger “originator” and a larger still “clan.” This matrilineal system was
headed by a clan mother. A group of clans made up a tribe, and several
tribes formed the confederacy.
Young people were taught to enter into an egalitarian collaborative
society in which power was distributed roughly equally between men
and women. Few formal instruments of authority existed. Behavior was
governed primarily by a sense of pride, belonging, and connectedness

to the group via common rituals and, where necessary, the shame of
ostracism. “Each nation,” Colden wrote in 1727, “is an absolute Republic
by itself, govern’d in all Publick Affairs of War and Peace by the Sachems
(Chiefs)… whose Authority and power is gain’d by and consists wholly in
the Opinion the rest of the Nation have of their Wisdom and Integrity.”6
Governed by Ne Gayaneshagowa (loosely translated as the Great
Binding Law), the Iroquois had a constitutional system of government
that existed prior to the founding of the United States. The basis
of governmental legitimacy came from the community and flowered
upward to the chiefs and council. It was grounded in a concept of
natural rights, consensus-oriented decision-making, consent not coercion,
a sophisticated system of checks and balances, public discussion and delib-
eration, and the protection of individual rights and liberties (although the
individual was secondary, the tribe primary).
In all important decisions, the Great Law required that chiefs submit
the issue to the tribe for approval.7 The Great Law even contained provi-
sions for impeachment and removal of chiefs, and upon the death of a
chief, the women of the clan deliberated about who would assume the
title. Their nomination of a new chief then went to the entire clan for
approval, then to a governing council for final approval.
The Ne Gayaneshagowa describes the leadership selection process as
follows:
When a Lordship title becomes vacant through death or other cause, The
Royaneh women of the clan in which the title is hereditary shall hold a
council and shall choose one from among their sons to fill the office made
vacant. Such a candidate shall not be the father of any Confederate Lord.
If the choice is unanimous the name is referred to the men relatives of the
clan. If they should disapprove it shall be their duty to select a candidate
from among their number. If then the men and women are unable to
decide which of the two candidates shall be named, then the matter shall
be referred to the Confederate Lords in the Clan. They shall decide which
candidate shall be named. If the men and women agree to a candidate his
name shall be referred to the sister clans for confirmation. If the sister clans
confirm the choice, they shall then refer their action to their Confederate
Lords who shall ratify the choice and present it to their cousin Lords, and
if the cousin Lords confirm the name then the candidate shall be installed
by the proper ceremony for the conferring of Lordship titles.
Women thus played a prominent role in leadership selection as well as the

daily life of the tribe.
The lineal descent of the people of the Five Nations shall run in the female
line. Women shall be considered the progenitors of the nation. They shall
own the land and the soil. Men and women shall follow the status of the
mother.
The Great Law contained a number of elements that would later appear
in different form in the U.S. Constitution. This excerpt from the Great
Law demonstrates how the constitution of the Iroquois League dealt with
checks and balances in decision-making:
In all cases the procedure must be as follows: when the Mohawk and
Seneca Lords have unanimously agreed upon a question, they shall report
their decision to the Cayuga and Oneida Lords who shall deliberate upon
the question and report a unanimous decision to the Mohawk Lords. The
Mohawk Lords will then report the standing of the case to the Firekeepers,
who shall render a decision… as they see fit in case of a disagreement by
the two bodies or confirm the decisions of the two bodies if they are
identical. The Firekeepers shall then report their decision to the Mohawk
Lords who shall announce it to the open council.
Leadership
Georgia Governor James Oglethorpe, speaking in 1764 of the role of
leadership in the Muscogee Tribe said:
… there is no coercive power… Their Kings can do no more than persuade.

All the power they have is no more than to call their old men and captains
and to propound to them the measures they think proper. After they
have done speaking, all the others have liberty to give their opinions
also; and they reason together with great temper and modesty, till they
have brought each other into some unanimous resolution. They call in the
young men and recommend the putting in execution the resolution with
their strongest and most lively eloquence. In speaking to their young men,
they generally address to the passions: in speaking to their old men they
apply to reason only.8
Most tribal nations had not one but several chiefs. Determined by the
consent of the people and based on a functional view of power, tribes had
different chiefs for different tasks: one chief in war, another for diplomacy,
another for planting, etc.
In Comparison to European political leaders, both peace and war chiefs

exercised only limited control over their followers. Unlike that of Old
World sovereigns who held a mortal power over their people, a peace
chief’s authority was limited primarily to persuasion and his ability to
reflect the attitudes and values of his tribesman. He led because he epito-
mized the will of his people. If a significant number of the people in his
village disagreed with him, they turned to another leader and his power
diminished. Most Indian villages were rife with factionalism, a problem
that greatly limited the influence of any particular peace chief. He could
not force those tribesmen who disagreed with him to accept his deci-
sions. If the factionalism became too intense, villages split and opposing
factions formed new villages. Similarly, war chiefs did not “command” the
tribesmen in their war parties. They led only because their followers had
confidence in them. If the war chief insisted upon policies opposed by
individual warriors, those individuals were free to leave the war party and
return to their homes.9
The chiefs had little “power” in the conventional sense. As French

anthropologist Pierre Clastres writes, “The chief has no authority at his
disposal, no power of coercion, no means of giving order. The chief is
not a commander; the people of the tribe are under no obligation to
obey…”10
According to Parker, the duties of chief were spelled out in great detail:
[They] shall be mentors of the people for all time. The thickness of their
skin shall be seven spans, which is to say that they shall be proof against
anger, offensive actions and criticism. Their hearts shall be full of peace
and good will and their minds filled with a yearning for their welfare of
the people of the confederacy. With endless patience they shall carry out
their duty and their firmness shall be tempered with a tenderness for the
people. Neither anger nor fury shall find lodgment in their minds, and all
their words and actions shall be marked with calm deliberation… [They]
must be honest in all things… self-interest must be cast into oblivion…
[They shall] look and listen for the welfare of the whole people, and have
always in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even
those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground…11
Unlike Europe of the time, rights of birth were generally inconsequen-

tial. Chiefs were generally selected for ability in a given task. They were
expected to devote themselves to the tribe, and govern by persuasion, not
command.
In general, tribal governments were democratic, decentralized, and
egalitarian. Leaders lacked coercive power and their role depended upon
maintaining the support of the tribe. Consensus, not individual rights,
predominated. There was no inherent right to leadership. While leader-
ship often fell to elders, even they governed only with the support of the
community. When support was withheld, the leader fell from his position.
Most leaders were men, but on rare occasion a woman assumed a chief’s
role. (In recent years Wilma Mankiller [what a great name!] was elected
Chief of the Cherokee Nation.)12
While chiefs exercised power/influence in different ways, depending
on the tribe and circumstances, several characteristics apply to almost all
tribes. Chiefs were generally expected to:
• Practice Self-Denial
• Bear the Traditions of the Tribe
• Serve the Community
• Practice Persuasion not Coercion
• Develop Consensus
• Work Collaboratively
• Link Spiritual Life to Governing
Many of these concepts seem alien to us, and to an extent, those in

the West may see these elements of leadership as a sign of weakness. In
this sense, the Native styles of leadership may have more in common with
Zen concepts of leadership than with those in the West. The Industrial
Model or the Command Model of leadership, so prevalent in the West,
is hierarchical and power oriented. It seeks to give the leader control.
The Native American style is more compatible with the emerging Post-
Industrial Model of leadership, which is more open, democratic, and
collegial.13
Impact on the Framers

Ample evidence exists to support the view that Native American forms of
government, most especially the Iroquois Confederacy, had an impact on
the views of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
While the Native American legacy is still disputed in some academic
circles,14 many historians and anthropologists now argue that indeed, the
framers drew a good deal from the Native peoples. Historian Donald
A. Grinde argues that “the United States Constitution owes much of
its emphasis on unity, federalism, and balance of power to Iroquois
concepts.”15 And while the evidence is to some slightly speculative, even
the U.S. Senate has paid tribute to the Native influences.16 The Iroquois
insist they had a significant influence on the framers, and many historians
agree.17
Many of the framers were familiar with the styles of government
practiced by the Native Americans. Benjamin Franklin was well versed
in Native traditions. Franklin, commenting on the government of the
Iroquois, wrote:
The Indian Men, when young are Hunters and Warriors; when old, Coun-
sellors; for all their Government is by the Counsel or Advice of the Sages;
there is no Force, there are no prisons, no Officers to compel Obedi-
ence, or inflict Punishment. Hence, they generally study Oratory; the best
Speaker having the most influence. The Indian Women till the Ground,
dress the Food, burse and bring up the Children, and preserve and hand
down to Posterity the Memory of Public Transactions…
Having frequent Occasions to hold public Councils, they have acquired

great Order and Decency in conducting them. The old Men sit in the
foremost Ranks, the Warriors in the next, and the Women and Children
in the hindmost. The Business of the Women is to take exact notice of
what passes, imprint it in their Memories, for they have no Writing, and
communicate it to their Children. They are the Records of the Council,
and they preserve Tradition of the Stipulations in Treaties a hundred Years
back, which when we compare with our Writings, we always find exact.
He that would speak, rises. The rest observe a profound Silence. When he
has finished and sits down, they leave him five or six Minutes to recollect,
that if he has omitted anything he intended to say, or has anything to add,
he may rise again and deliver it. To interrupt another, evening common
Conversation is reckoned highly indecent. How different it is from the
Conduct of a polite British House of Commons, where scarce a Day passes
without some confusion that makes the speaker hoarse in calling to order;
and how different from the mode of Conversation in many polite Compa-
nies of Europe, where if you do not deliver your Sentence with great
Rapidity, you are cut off in the middle of it by the impatient loquacity of
those you converse with, & never suffer’d to finish it.18
Franklin’s 1754 Albany Plan of Union called for the colonists to model
their confederation after the Iroquois Confederacy. “It would be a strange
thing,” he wrote, “If Six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable
of forming a scheme for such a union and be able to executive it in
such a manner as that is has subsisted ages and appears indissoluble; and
yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English
colonies, to whom it is more necessary to be supposed to want an equal
understanding of their interests.”19
According to Grinde, Franklin met with Iroquois chiefs and delegates
of the Continental Congress to “hammer out a plan that he acknowledged
to be similar to the Iroquois Confederacy;” and that Franklin’s work
“is resplendent with stories about Indians and Indian ideas of personal
freedom and structures of government.”20 Franklin was quite knowledge-
able of Iroquois and Native American customs and government. Thomas
Jefferson’s papers refer on several occasions to “the forms of Iroquois
governance.” Even James Madison made trips to study and speak with
Iroquois leaders.21 John Adams wrote about the separation of powers of
the Native Americans as a model for the colonists.22 And James Wilson,
arguing for confederation 1776, stated that “Indians know the striking
benefits of Confederation [and they] have an example of it in the union
of the Six Nations.”23
De Witt Clinton called the Iroquois “the Romans of the Western
World.”24 And John Adams, in his influential Defense of the Constitutions
of Government of the United States, published in 1787, included an anal-
ysis of Native American traditions and governments, acknowledging that
some of the “great philosophers and politicians of the age [want to] set
up governments of… modern Indians.”25
As Grinde writes:
Adams felt that instead of attempting to implement Indian governments

as Franklin saw them it would be more helpful to have “a more accurate
investigation of the form of governments of the… Indians” In addition,
Adams believed that it would be “well worth the pains… to collect… the
legislation of the Indians” while developing a new constitution for the

United States. Adams urged leaders of the time to investigate the “gov-
ernment of… modern Indians,” since the separation of powers in their
government “is marked with a precision that excludes all controversy.”
Indeed, Adams remarked that the legislative branch in modern Indian
governments is so democratic that the “real sovereignty resided in the
body of the people.”
Personal liberty was so important to American Indians, according to

Adams, that Mohawks have “complete individual independence.” More-
over, Adams also pointed out that every American Indian nation in North
America had three distinct branches of government.26
Legal Scholar Felix Cohen wrote that:
It is out of rich Indian democratic tradition that the distinctive political

ideals of American life emerged. Universal suffrage for women as for men,
the pattern of states that we call federalism, the habit of treating chiefs
as servants of the people instead of their masters, the insistence that the
community must respect the diversity of men and the diversity of their
dreams – all these things were part of the American way of life before
Columbus landed.27
John Adams, in his three-volume survey of different forms of govern-

ment, written to assist the Framers in their task of writing a new
constitution, included, in addition to the usual suspects (Athenian democ-
racy, the Rome Republic, John Locke, and Montesquieu), information on
the Iroquois Confederacy, as well as other indigenous governments.28
The Iroquois Confederacy served the framers as an example of self-
governance, proof that monarchy was not inevitable, and proof that a
republic could survive and flourish. Given that there is no comparable
example in Europe at the time of the framers, the living example of the
Iroquois Confederacy gave the framers some reason for hope. But there
are limits that must be noted.
As Robert W. Venables writes:
At many levels, the Constitution composed at Philadelphia – that is, prior

to two centuries of amendments – was a betrayal of values held in esteem
by the Iroquois. Women were originally omitted from the United States’
political system. Black human life was valued at three-fifths the value of
white human life. The Constitution separated government into branches

intended more to check than to balance each other, because the checks
and balances were achieved through tension. Moreover, the Constitution
specifically rejected the Iroquois idea that government is by consensus.
Instead, the Constitution mandates the rule of the majority. And under
the Constitution, church and state are separate whereas the Iroquois inte-
grate religion and politics. Finally, the Constitution was defined in terms
of private, individual property rights, not communal property rights.
Despite these differences, it must be emphasized that replication should

not be the only standard which the twentieth century should seek to under-
stand how the Iroquois and other Indian people influenced the Founding
Fathers and the Constitution. This is seen in a reference by John Adams,
who in refuting a similarity to Indians in one instance, admitted another
similarity – the similarity being that the United States derived its power
just as Indian nations did: from “we the people.”29
If structurally, the presidency bears only marginal similarity to the

Chiefs of the Iroquois Confederacy, there may be a closer connection
to the mode of operation or style of politics practiced in both systems.
Presidents, like chiefs, were dependent upon others for their authority
and power. If a president’s (chief’s) acts are to be legitimate, they must
gain the consent of the Congress (Council) and ultimately of the voting
public (tribe). The president has few “powers” but, like the chiefs, is well
positioned to exert influence.
While originally the president was removed as much as possible from
the pressures of public opinion, the chiefs depended on popular support.
Today, of course, presidents often seem slaves to the popular will.30
Presidents are expected to practice a brand of politics that is coalition-
oriented and consensus-building in nature. They have little independent
authority to act and therefore must build bridges to other political actors.
Likewise, Iroquois chiefs had to build bridges to the community, never
losing sight of their core constituency.
The presidency, which emerged from the Philadelphia convention, did
not in itself resemble the position of chief(s) as practiced by the Iroquois.
However, the separation of powers and other elements of the Iroquois
confederacy did find comparable institutional provisions written into the
U.S. Constitution. If the lessons of the Iroquois were somewhat lost in
the invention of the presidency, are there lessons that may be relevant to
us today in their style of leadership?
Clearly, tribal nations and governments had some impact on the

framers of the U.S. Constitution. Precisely how much influence is difficult
to determine. What, if anything, can we learn from the styles of governing
and leadership practiced by the first Americans?
The literature in the field of Leadership Studies suggests that we are
currently going through a transformation in the understanding and prac-
tice of leadership. The Industrial Model of leadership (hierarchical, power
oriented, “male”) is giving way to a Post-Industrial Model (cooperative,
collegial, influence oriented, “androgynous”).31 In this transformation,
we can learn much from the styles of leadership practiced by Native
Americans.
In many ways, these Native American styles are a precursor to the Post-
Industrial models of leadership with their emphasis on:
• Service
• Persuasion, not Coercion
• Influence, not Power
• Consensus-building
• Collaborative Coalition-building
• Situational Styles of Leadership
• Style-Flexing
The emerging style of leadership practiced in the West corresponds

with much of what was practiced in the Iroquois Confederacy. It may be
a lesson late in coming, but there are things we can yet learn from the
Iroquois.
The Iroquois were a pre-industrial people living in relatively small
groups who were required to work collaboratively in order to survive.
What possible relevance can their understanding of political authority and
leader–follower relations have for us?
During the rise of industrialism, the example of the Iroquois may have
been of only limited utility to us. But today—as we enter a post-industrial
era, an age of Globalism—the Iroquois present us with some attrac-
tive, even tantalizing, opportunities. In many respects, globalization and
advances in communications technology give us at least pseudo face-to-
face interactions with a vast network of people in far places. Also, we are
increasingly forced—especially in the workplace—to work collaboratively
in order to survive. The relevance then, of Native American patterns is
perhaps just as important to us as it was to the framers of the Constitution:

a demonstration of what is possible.32
Early Encounters
For much of the pre-Revolutionary War period, tribal nations were caught
in the middle of the super-power conflicts of the day. French, British, and
Spanish imperial interests conflicted, and each side assiduously courted
tribal nations to aid in their causes, always with the (false) promise that
the interests of the tribe coincided with their interests. During the French
and Indian War (1754–1763) which set the British colonists against “New
France,” many tribal nations sided with the French (George Washington
engaged in or led several key battles of this war, usually against Indians).
The British relied mainly on the Iroquois, Catawba, and Cherokee tribes
while the French were allied with the Wabanaki Confederacy, the Algo-
nquian, Ottawa, Shawnee, and other tribes. The British “won” the war,
and the forces of France diminished in the New World.
The revolutionary rhetoric of the colonists was expressed by Thomas
Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, of the
many charges leveled against the Crown was that of unleashing “mer-
ciless Indian Savages” against innocent colonists. And the Declaration
also admonishes the King for preventing the colonists from appropriating
western lands. Thus, Native tribes were understandably worried about
their fate should the colonists emerge victorious.
During the Revolutionary War, the British, hoping to use Indian tribes
as a force multiplier against the colonists, recruited several tribes to their
cause. When George Washington found out that the Haudenosaunee
(Iroquois confederacy) had joined the British side, he instructed Major
General John Sullivan to immediately attack the Haudenosaunee “to lay
waste all the settlements around… that the country may not be merely
overrun but destroyed … [Y]ou will not, by any means, listen to any
overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected
… Our future security will be in their inability to injure us … and in
the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will
inspire them.” To this, Sullivan replied, “The Indians shall see that there
is malice enough in our hearts to destroy everything that contributes to
their support.”33
Native American allegiances were split, with most supporting the
British and others supporting the Colonists. The original hope among
tribal nations was to remain neutral in the coming war,34 but animosi-
ties, past grievances, and ongoing land grabs by British settlers set several
tribes against the British and others against the Colonists.35
Shortly after the colonies defeated the British in the war for Indepen-
dence, many Native leaders, recognizing the changed political circum-
stances, attempted to establish diplomatic relations with the victors. But
there wasn’t much of a government with which to deal. Especially trou-
bling was that with the British disposed of, the new nation, in disregard of
the land rights of tribal nations, began to press westward. Despite treaties
protecting Indian lands, white settlers began to move into western terri-
tories and there was no national military to enforce treaties if they wished
to do so.
The Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war for independence,
transferred control of Indian lands in the former colonies to the new
United States. And while the treaty ceded Indian lands to the new govern-
ment, it did so without any input or participation from the affected
tribes.
Shortly before the new Constitution went into effect, the Congress
of the Articles of Confederation passed several versions of the Northwest
Ordinance, an effort to set policy regarding the white settlements being
carved out of the greater Ohio Valley. It was, as Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
writes, a “blueprint for occupying and driving out the substantial agricul-
tural societies of the formally British-protected Indian territory (“Ohio
County”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies.”36
These Ordinances (1785 and 1787) set into motion a policy of
auctioning off Indian lands “to the highest bidder.”37 It was an effort to
extend the government’s blessing that would lead to settler colonization.
In the time between the Revolutionary War and the writing of the
Constitution, the seeds of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were
being planted in the soil of the new nation. It would end up devouring
the Native peoples.
The Founding Myth

All countries need founding myths, creation stories that explain, justify,
and glorify; stories we tell our children to help socialize them into the
status quo and develop generational loyalty and support for the state.
In America, the Founding Myth revolves around the Framers—Wash-
ington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and others—who fought
for liberty, equality, and democracy, men who risked life and fortune so
that future generations could live free.
Of course, reality is a bit more complex than that. Some framers
(Hamilton, for example) feared democracy; others (e.g., Washington)
preferred a republic; and still others preferred modeling the new govern-
ment on the old British system (Hamilton, again). The myth, however,
was a powerful one, transmitted from generation to generation, giving
each new cohort something to believe in and commit to.
Part of the American founding myth is the conquest myth. Brave
settlers confronted challenge after challenge to tame the West, establish
a civilized order, and bring democracy and the rule of law to a savage
land. It was a myth of white settlers overcoming adversity, brave men
(and women) who settled the wilderness.
But the myth was in part built on contradictions. How could we speak
of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” when slavery prevented
Africans brought here against their will from enjoying the benefits of this
newfound freedom? How could we celebrate justice and equality when
the white settlers treated the Native population with contempt, violence,
and duplicity? The myth was a white male myth. Citizenship was denied
to people of color. And full citizenship was denied to women.38
The Genocide Question

Is it fair, is it accurate to say that a “policy,” of genocide was implemented
by the United States government against the Native populations?
In 2009, a rider was added to a dense congressional appropriations
bill acknowledging the role of the government in massacres against
Indigenous Tribes (e.g., Wounded Knee, Sand Creek), along with forced
removals and relocations, and “years of official depredations, ill-conceived
policies, and the breaking of covenants by the Federal Government
regarding Indian tribes.” It went on to express “regrets for the ramifi-
cations of founder wrongs.” The word “genocide” did not appear in the
bill.39
Legally, politically, and morally, a narrative of invisibility and erasure
allowed the Christian, white settlers to dehumanize “savages” or turn a
blind eye to their existence.40 Only then could the violence on such a
mass scale be legitimized if not justified.
In 1948, in Resolution 260 [III] of the General Assembly, the United
Nations Convention on Genocide defined genocide as follows:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to

destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as
such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.41
This definition highlights the two elements of genocide as physical—one

of the five areas—and mental—“intent” to destroy.
The policies of the U.S. government and of presidents were the result
of choice. Nothing was preordained. Reasons such as racism, greed, reli-
gious bigotry, colonial arrogance, and cultural superiority all allowed
settlers to impose a harsh dominance on Native American populations.
They chose to destroy and dislocate Native populations. It was intentional.
Conclusion
American presidents mattered to Native Americans. From George Wash-
ington’s early efforts to balance the rights and sovereignty of Native
people with the pressures to expand westward, to Thomas Jefferson and
the Lewis and Clark expedition, to Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears
and beyond, presidential policies and actions toward Native Americans
would reveal the true nature of colonization, power politics, and the role
of racism in the history of the United States.
Notes
1. Watson, Blake A. Buying America from the Indians, University of
Oklahoma Press, 2012.
2. Barry, Richard. Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, Duell, Sloan and Pearce,
1942.
3. Carter, George F. “Cultural, Historical Diffusion,” in Peter Hugill and D.
Bruce Dickson, eds., Transfer and Transformation of Ideas, Texas A&M
University Press, 1988, p. 19.
4. Johansen, Bruce E. Forgotten Founders: How The American Indian Helped
Shape Democracy, Harvard Common Press, 1982.
5. Josephy, Jr., Alvin M. The Patriot Chiefs, Penguin Books, 1978, p. 8.
6. Quotes in Josephy, The Patriot Chiefs, pp. 8–9.

7. Lyons, Oren., et al. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian
Nations and the U.S. Constitution, Clear Light Publishers, 1992.
8. Edmunds, David R. Americana Indian Leaders, University of Nebraska
Press, 1980, pp. viii–ix.
9. Ibid., pp. viii–ix.
10. Clastres, Pierre. Society Against the States, Urizen Books, 1977, p. 228.
11. Parker, Arthur H. Parker on the Iroquois, ed., William Fenton, Syracuse
University Press, 1968.
12. O’Brien, Sharon. American Indian Tribal Government, University of
Oklahoma Press, 1989, p. 16.
13. Culp III, Kenneth, and Cox, Kathryn J. “Leadership Styles for the New
Millennium: Creating New Paradigms,” The Journal of Leadership Studies,
Winter 1997, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3–17; and Kielson, Daniel C. “Leader-
ship: Creating a New Reality,” The Journal of Leadership Studies, Fall
1996, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 104–116.
14. Haupton, Laurence. Tribes and Tribulations, University of New Mexico
Press, Ch. 3, “Speculations on the Constitution,” 1995.
15. Lyons, Oren., et al. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian
Nations and the U.S. Constitution, Clear Light Publishers, 1992, p. 240.
16. United States Congress, Senate Resolution No. 76, Washington, DC,
Government Printing Office, 1988.
17. Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of
Tradition in American Culture, Knopf, 1991.
18. Exiled in the Land of the Free, pp. 103–104.
19. Josephy, The Patriot Chiefs, pp. 28–29.
20. Mander, In the Absence of the Sacred, p. 233.
21. Grinde, Donald. The Iroquois and the Founding of the American Nation,
The Indian Historical Press, 1977.
22. Exiled in the Land of the Free, p. 254.
24. Campbell, William B. The Life and Writings of De Witt Clinton, Baker &
Schibner, 1849.
25. Quoted in Exiled, p. 262.
27. Cohen, Felix. “Americanizing the White Man,” The American Scholar,
1952, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 179–180.
28. Little, Becky. “The Native American Government That Inspired the U.S.
Constitution,” History, November 9, 2020; and Grinde, Jr., Donald A.,
and Johansen, Bruce E. Exemplar of Liberty: Native American and the
Evolution of Democracy, American Indian studies Center, UCLA, 1991.
29. Venables, Robert W. “American Indian Influences on the America of the
Founding Fathers,” Ch. 3 of Exiles, pp. 116–117.
30. Genovese, Michael A., and Streb, Matthew. Polls and Politics, SUNY
Press, 2004.
31. Genovese, Michael A., ed. Women as National Leaders, Sage, 1995.
32. Genovese, Michael A. Unearthing the Buried Foundations of the American
Presidency: What the Native-Americans Taught the Framers About Political
Leadership, and What They Can Teach Us, White House Studies, 2005,
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 393–404.
33. Quoted in Drinnon, Richard. Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-
Hating and Empire-Building, University of Minnesota Press, 1980,
p. 331.
34. Trafzer, Clifford E., ed. American Indians/American Presidents, Harper
Collins, 2009, p. 36.
35. Calloway, Colin G. The American Revolution in Indian Country,
Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 26–31 and 288–308.
36. Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne and Gilio-Whitaker, Dina. “All the Real Indians
Died Off”: And 20 Other Myths About Native Americans, Beacon Press,
2016, p. 68.
37. Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution,
Macmillan, 2007, p. 14.
38. Lepore, Gill. These Truths: A History of the United States, Norton, 2018.
39. Dunbar Ortiz, Roxanne and Gilio-Whitaker, Dina. “Myths: The United
States Did Not Have a Policy of Genocide,” All the Real Indians Died
Off , Beacon Press, 2016, p. 59.
40. Diamond, Neil (director). Reel Injuns, film documentary, Lionsgate,
2011.
41. Dunbar-Ortiz and Gilio-Whitaker, pp. 61–62.
CHAPTER 3
The Founding Era: Establishing

Relations—George Washington to John
Quincy Adams
The presidency of today is the result of more than 230 years of develop-
ment. In fits and starts, the presidency has grown and shrunk; presidential
power has expanded and contracted. But, if the presidency has been
the product of these fluctuations, the overall trend has been toward
growth—unsteady and uneven—but growth, nonetheless.
Some presidents enlarged the office; others diminished it. Some left
new tools for their successors; others left their successors in seemingly
impossible situations. Of all the framers’ inventions, the presidency was
left least formed. Thus, while the office may have been invented by
the framers, it was created and brought to life by Washington and his
successors.
The office that emerged from the Philadelphia Convention was incom-
plete and unformed. Thus, Washington, the first president, ventured into
largely uncharted territory. Everything was new. There was precious little
constitutional guidance to follow. Washington would have to invent as he
went along. The presidency is an office made in practice as much as one
drafted in Philadelphia.

Switzerland AG 2021
George Washington
Unusually tall for his time, at 6’3” George Washington was a towering
figure.1 Beyond his imposing height, the first president of the United
States was the towering political figure of his era as well, due to his accom-
plishments, character, and the high esteem in which he was held by his
contemporaries. Washington was seen as a man of virtue and honor. He
was the man who could have been king but chose to be president. That
alone endeared him to his countrymen.
In some ways, George Washington is today an icon perched upon a
pedestal, more myth than man; a monument, statuesque, and seemingly
impenetrable; a classical hero in a modern world. He viewed the American
experiment in republican government as promising, but fragile. He knew
his role in establishing a presidency was of enormous significance. Hoping
to establish dignified republican norms and standards, he tried to lead by
example that which was required of the new government.
Washington was an enormously complex, even contradictory, man.
He was a truly self-created person. Over the years, Washington worked
hard at inventing himself, becoming the person of honor and integrity
he strove so hard to become. He could be vain, ambitious, and status-
seeking. He was driven to succeed. Much of his life was an effort to
control and direct these ambitions toward noble and selfless goals. He
needed public acclaim, and yet he was personally remote, aloof, even cold.
He was, in this sense, an unlikely hero. He was consumed with achieving
success, yet when he could have been king, he refused. Harnessing such
ambitions in the service of republican goals made Washington different.
Near the end of the revolution, King George III, Washington’s adver-
sary, asked the painter John Trumbull, who had just returned to England
after a trip to America, what he thought Washington would do after the
war. “Go back to his farm,” answered Trumbull, to which George III
replied, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”2 That
is just what Washington did.
Several years later, George III again praised Washington’s humility,
saying that his voluntary withdrawal from power “placed him in a light
the most distinguished of any man living,” and referred to him as “the
greatest character of his age.”3
What was it about Washington’s character that so impressed his
contemporaries? Washington had what in Latin is referred to as “gravi-
tas”—dignified seriousness; he was a man of substance. He had a dignity
3 THE FOUNDING ERA: ESTABLISHING RELATIONS … 29
and presence that reminded people of the noble Roman, Cincinnatus,

who left the plow to save Rome from the barbarian hordes, and then,
having saved Rome, returned to his plow. Washington derived honor from
selfless service. As Commander of the Army for eight years, he repeat-
edly rejected offers of dictatorial powers. When independence was won,
he voluntarily laid down his command to return to the life of a private
citizen.
His huge ego was employed in the service of his community. But his
ego and ambition—dangerous attributes in most men—were under strict
self-control. Washington’s ambition drove him to succeed, and his skills
allowed him to achieve much; his self-discipline let him give up power and
glory. This is what made him truly great. He wanted power but did not
overtly seek it. He was driven by ambition but controlled and subjugated
that personal ambition to a higher goal.
At the time of his inauguration, the United States was still a fledgling
nation. Most Americans worked the land, felt more loyalty to their state
than their country, and possessed a rugged pioneer spirit. There were, at
this time, only three commercial banks in the entire nation. The western
territories were controlled by European powers and populated by Native
tribes. The nation’s largest cities, Philadelphia (population 42,000), New
York (31,000), and Baltimore (13,000) were tiny by European standards.
When Washington took the oath of office as first president of the new
United States in 1789, people had great confidence and trust in him.
There were, however, grave doubts about the legitimacy and role of this
new office, called a “presidency.”
The Constitution, far from settling the question of presidential power,
left more questions than answers. The Constitution was vague and
ambiguous, barely charting a skeletal organization for the new office.
There was confusion over the political role and character of this presi-
dency. Article II, “the executive power shall be vested in a President,”
settled little. What powers? What limits? What relation to Congress, to
the Courts? What connection to the people? Leader or manager?
Washington had no deep political or partisan agenda. His goal was
to establish the legitimacy of the office, place it on secure footing, give
it some independence, and establish legitimacy of the new republican
government. As president, he attempted to be a national unifier, bringing
the two bitter rivals, Hamilton and Jefferson, together in his cabinet,
hoping to forestall, if not stamp out, the emerging partisan division
between these two powerful adversaries and the ideas that animated their
public hostility.
Aware of the importance of every step, act, decision, and non-decision,
Washington told James Madison: “As the first of everything, in our situ-
ation will serve to establish a precedent, it is devoutly wished on my part,
that these precedents may be fixed on true principles.”
“I walk,” he noted, “on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part
of my conduct that may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.” He
further noted, “Many things which appear of little importance in them-
selves and at the beginning may have great and durable consequences
from there having been established at the commencement of a new
general government.”
Here was a man creating an institution as he went along. The Consti-
tution of 1787 was painted only in very broad strokes. It was left to
Washington (and his successors) to fill in the details. This left consid-
erable leeway for Washington to invent an office. He was not handed a
blank page on which to draw, but the openness of the Constitution left
room for individuals and events to complete the job the framers started.
Every act had meaning, and Washington was able to establish a number
of important and lasting precedents. One of his key contributions was in
wrestling some executive independence from Congress in several impor-
tant areas. He established a precedent of hiring and firing (the latter a
serious bone of contention) a cabinet and key executive officers.
Washington also fought for a modicum of independent control over
foreign affairs and treaty making. Some ongoing negotiations with tribal
nations put executive-congressional relations to the test early in his
administration. The Constitution called for the president to seek the
advice and consent of the Senate in making treaties, but what form should
this advice take? Washington asked James Madison how to proceed:
“Would an oral or written communication be best? If the first, what
mode is to be adopted to affect it?” On August 22, 1789, the presi-
dent asked the Senate for consultation regarding a proposed treaty. Vice
President John Adams read a message to the Senate from President Wash-
ington, which concerned several points about the treaty, hoping to get the
Senate’s advice and consent. A confused Senate, surprised and unprepared
to meet Washington’s request, couldn’t figure out how to respond. Wash-
ington grew progressively angrier, declaring, “This defeats every purpose
of my coming here.” So off-put was Washington that he resolved never
to seek Senate consultation again.
3 THE FOUNDING ERA: ESTABLISHING RELATIONS … 31
In truth, most of the fault rested with the president. Had he informed
the Senate prior to dropping the treaty on their laps, they might have been
better prepared to engage in serious consultation. But this event marked
the last time Washington attempted to use the Senate in an advisory
capacity. Such consultation that subsequently took place was in private,
and thereafter the Senate was not seriously involved in the advise part of
Advise and Consent.
Washington’s Impact
What was Washington’s contribution to this new government and this
new presidency? While James Madison is rightfully called the Father of
the U.S. Constitution, no one contributed more to the operation of the
new government than George Washington. It was Washington who put
the new constitutional framework on solid footing and who served when
the Bill of Rights was adopted.4
He is considered a great man and a great president. In an age when
the skilled used of power marked greatness, Washington proved a great
man because he willingly relinquished power. In July 1799, Governor
Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut implored Washington to serve a third
term as president. Only Washington, Trumbull wrote, could save the
nation from a “French President” (Thomas Jefferson). But Washington
refused, claiming that new political conditions in the nation made his
presidency unnecessary. It was a new era of more democratic and more
party-oriented politics. “Personal influence” no longer mattered as much.
Party, not character, determined how people voted. Even if he ran, Wash-
ington wrote, he was “thoroughly convinced I should not draw a single
vote from the anti-federalist side.”5
President George Washington has been one of our Mount Rushmore
presidents. He usually is ranked as the third best U.S. President (after
Lincoln and FDR). He was also a slave owner and the first president to
deal from a place of authority with Native Americans. Washington, like all
of us, was a man of his place and times; a southern landowner in an age
of slavery.
Washington was the source and symbol of national unity for the Euro-
pean settler population at a time when the result of this experiment in
republican government was very much in doubt. He domesticated power
and facilitated the development of a republican culture to go along with
republican institutions.
Talleyrand, Napoleon’s foreign minister, delivered the following

tribute to Washington after the great president’s death, describing him
as “the man who… first dared believe that he could inspire degenerate
nations with the courage to rise to the level of republican virtue.”6
Washington was a great doer and a great teacher of the style and
substance of republican government. What he did was of immeasurable
importance. But what he did not do may have been even more signifi-
cant. He did not take sides in the continental wars that swept Europe as
a result of France’s revolutionary experiment, buying precious time for
the United States to evolve a sense of nationhood. He did not organize
a king’s party, nor regard himself as a democratically chosen monarch.
Most important of all, by voluntarily relinquishing office at the end of
two terms, Washington forced a world more accustomed to Caesar than
Cincinnatus to revise its definition of greatness. “George Washington was
one of the few in the whole history of the world who was not carried away
by power,” Robert Frost said without a hint of poetic license. Poignant
confirmation of this came from none other than Napoleon Bonaparte,
who, on his deathbed at St. Helena, far removed from military pomp and
glory, sighed, “They wanted me to be another Washington.”
Washington as Author of Federal Indian Policy

Thirty years before George Washington became the first president of the
United States, he renovated Mount Vernon, his legendary plantation on
the banks of the Potomac River.
Then a 27-year-old army commander, Washington in 1759 trans-
formed his family’s modest farmhouse into a mansion. He also moved the
main entrance, reorienting the home from eastward-facing to westward,
symbolizing one of his deepest convictions: “that the future lay in those
wild and wooded lands”7 of the Ohio Country and beyond. Biographer
Joseph Ellis writes that, “even when ensconced on the eastern edge of the
continent at Mount Vernon, Washington spent a good deal of his time
and energy dreaming and scheming about virgin land over the western
horizon.”
When Washington became president in 1789, he brought to the office
the uneasy conviction that Native Americans were destined to be displaced
as white settlers moved westward. He also brought a nickname: Members
of the Iroquois Confederacy called him “Conotocarious,” which means
“devourer of villages.”8
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"You!" Josiah exclaimed in amazement. "You, ma'am!"
"Yes," Mrs. Fowler rejoined, "it is the right thing for me to do, and you must do the same.
Why should you object if I do not?"
"You must give in now, Petherick," Mr. Amyatt said quickly, "if Mrs. Fowler is ready to do
this for your sake—"
"I will do it for his sake, and for my own, and for the sake of all those we love," she
interposed. "Oh, think of Salome!" she said earnestly to Josiah. "You have brought her
untold trouble, and have made her homeless all through drink. Look at this ruined cottage,
and reflect that but for the kindness of the Moyles, your child would be without shelter and
food. How can you hesitate?"
"I don't, ma'am."
"Then, if I take the pledge, will you?" Mrs. Fowler inquired eagerly.
"Yes," Josiah answered, "I don't see that I can say 'no' to that."
An hour later, Mrs. Fowler entered the drawing-room at Greystone, where her little
daughter was seated alone near the fire, reading. Margaret put down her book, whilst her
mother, who had removed her walking garments, sank rather wearily into an easy-chair.
"I have been talking to your father, my dear," Mrs. Fowler said with a smile. "I suppose,
like him, you want to hear about Salome first of all," and she proceeded to give an account
of her interview with the lame girl, and to explain the arrangement that had been made for
her to remain with the Moyles for the present.
"And did her father really set the cottage on fire?" Margaret inquired.
"Yes. He was intoxicated, and pulled off the lamp in clutching at the table-cloth. It is
fortunate neither he nor Salome was burnt. My dear, I have a piece of news for you."
"Yes?" Margaret said, interrogatively, as Mrs. Fowler paused.
"Josiah Petherick has consented to take the pledge, and I am going to take the pledge
too!"
"Mother!"
Mrs. Fowler gave a brief account of her interview with the fisherman and Mr. Amyatt, to
which her little daughter listened with breathless interest. When she had ceased speaking,
Margaret went to her side and kissed her.
"Oh, child!" cried Mrs. Fowler, encircling the slender form with her arms. "Do you really
care for me? I thought I had for ever forfeited your love and respect. My dear, I never
properly valued your affection until I feared I had lost it. I have been a selfish mother, but,
please God, I'll be different in the future. When I faced the possibility of losing you, it
nearly broke my heart."
"Oh, mother! And I feared you did not like to have me with you! I thought—"
"Was that why you shrank from me? Margaret—" and Mrs. Fowler spoke very impressively.
"There has been a black shadow over my life for a long, long time. It stood between me
and your father, between you and me, and even between my soul and God. I believe, and
pray that it is gone."
The little girl pressed her lips again to her mother's cheek, and though she made no reply,
that gentle kiss, so tenderly and lovingly given, was the seal of a better understanding
between these two who had been slowly drifting apart. And neither was likely to doubt the
other's affection again.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Happier Days.
ONCE more, it was summer time. Eight months had elapsed since the night when the
Pethericks' home had been destroyed by fire. And in the place of the old thatched dwelling,
a modern red-brick cottage had been built, which, though certainly not so picturesque as
the former one, was very comfortable, and possessed a bow window to its little parlour,
which was the envy and admiration of all the villagers. Already young ivy plants had been
placed against the bare, red walls; and the garden had been coaxed into good order, and
was now making a fine show with its summer flowers.
The cottage was barely furnished, for though to the amazement of all Yelton, Josiah had
become a pledged teetotaler, and had in very truth turned over a new leaf, he had not
been able to earn much money during the winter months. And when the new home had
been completed a fortnight previously, he had only been in a position to purchase a few
cheap articles of furniture which were absolute necessaries, such as beds, and cooking
utensils.
One beautiful June evening, Salome sat inside the bow window from which there was an
uninterrupted view of the beach, and the wide expanse of sea, her busy fingers knitting as
usual, her fresh, sweet voice trilling a merry song. She was blissfully happy, for at that
moment she had not a care in the world. Her father, now he had really given up drink, was
kind and considerate as he had been in her mother's lifetime, and was doing all he possibly
could to make up to her for the sorrow he had caused her in the past.
God had been good to her, she told herself, for He had answered her earnest prayers on
her father's behalf. And her love and patience, so often sorely tried, had not been in vain.
A step on the gravel path caused Salome to raise her eyes from her work, and her face lit
up with a glad, welcoming smile as she saw Margaret Fowler coming to the door.
"Don't get up," Margaret called to her, "I'll let myself in, if I may," and a minute later she
entered the room, her fair countenance aglow with health and happiness. She seated
herself in the bow window opposite to Salome, and glanced around the bare, little parlour
with smiling eyes undimmed by any shadow of trouble now. "I've been practising the
organ," she said. "Mother and father have been listening, and criticising my performance.
They both think I've improved wonderfully of late."
"Indeed you have, Miss Margaret," Salome agreed heartily.

"Mother and father have gone home; but I thought I would like a chat with you. I like this
bow window, don't you?"
"Yes, miss; it makes the room so light and airy. I'm afraid the place looks very bare,
though, with no carpet, and no furniture but that deal table and these two chairs."
"Never mind. I daresay you'll add to your stock of furniture later on."
"That's what father says. We must try to pick things together gradually again. People have
been so kind to us, you can't imagine how kind. Mrs. Moyle gave us her old dinner set, and
some odd cups and plates; and Mr. Amyatt's housekeeper sent down some bedding from
the Vicarage—of course Mr. Amyatt must have told her to do so. Then your dear mother,
miss! See what she has done for us. Why, she made us a present of the very chairs we're
sitting on, and—"
"Oh, yes, I know!" Margaret interposed. "I think there's little mother wouldn't do for you,
Salome."
"But the best thing she ever did, was when she induced father to take the pledge. I am
sure he would never have done so, if she had not set him the example. Oh, miss, I believe
he regretted it, at first; but now, I'm certain, in his heart, he knows it has been his
salvation. He isn't like the same man he was a year ago. Look at him now," pointing to a
stalwart figure seated on the beach bending over a fishing net. "Last summer, you wouldn't
have found him content to mind his business like that, he'd have been at the 'Crab and
Cockle' drinking. I little thought when I heard Greystone was taken, what kind friends you
all would be to father and me."
"And I little thought when I first saw you leaning over the garden gate, Salome, how much
you would do for me."
"I!" cried the lame girl, opening her dark eyes wide in astonishment. "Why, I've done
nothing, I've had no opportunity—"
"Ah, you don't know all! I've learnt a great deal from you, I have indeed, though you
mayn't know it—a great deal besides knitting," Margaret said with a smile. "It was you who
taught me, by your self-sacrificing love for your father, what love ought to be—faithful and
long-suffering. That was a lesson I never learnt till I met you."
Salome looked earnestly at her companion's expressive face, and was emboldened to put a
question that had trembled on her lips many times of late:
"That trouble you spoke to me about, Miss Margaret—is it gone?"
Margaret nodded in silence.
"I'm so glad," said Salome, simply.
"Do you remember Mrs. Lute, the lady who stayed with us at Greystone last summer?"
Margaret questioned presently. "Yes. Well, we are expecting her to visit us again. And
mother says she hopes your father will be able to take us out boating frequently, because
Mrs. Lute is so fond of being on the water. And mother feels safer with your father than
with anyone else, because he knows the coast so well. You know, mother is still a little
nervous at times."
"But she is wonderfully better, isn't she?"

"Oh, yes. Look! Surely I see Miss Conway and Gerald talking to your father on the beach.
When they pass here, I'll join them, and we can walk home together."
"How Master Gerald does grow!" Salome exclaimed. "And he has so improved too! That's
come about since your illness last autumn, miss. He was in a terrible state of distress
then."
"So mother has since told me," Margaret replied. "Yes, he has improved; he's much more
obedient than he used to be; Miss Conway was saying, only this morning, how little trouble
she has with him now."
The truth was, Mrs. Fowler had come to understand that her foolish indulgence had been
likely to ruin her little son. And though she loved him no less, she wielded a firmer sway
over him, and upheld his governess' discipline. With the result that he was a much more
contented little boy than he had been, when he had had his own way. He still sometimes
gave way to exhibitions of violent temper, but he was growing ashamed of these
paroxysms, and they were becoming less and less frequent.
When Miss Conway and Gerald left the beach, Margaret said good-bye to Salome, and
joined the governess and her charge as they were passing the cottage.
"We've been talking to Josiah Petherick," the little boy informed his sister, "and I've been
telling him that Mrs. Lute's coming. Do you know, Margaret, that Josiah is going to be in
the choir?"
"No. Salome did not tell me; but I left her rather hurriedly when I saw you coming. I know
he used to be in the choir before—"
"Before he took to drink," said Gerald, finishing the sentence as she paused in hesitation.
"Well, he doesn't drink now; wasn't it a good thing he gave it up? I like Josiah, he's so
brave, and he knows such a lot about the sea, and ships."
They had left the village, and were ascending the hill towards Greystone, now and again
pausing, to look back the way they had come.
"I don't think the Pethericks' new cottage is half so pretty as their old one, do you, Miss
Conway?" Gerald asked, appealing to the governess.
"Perhaps not—in spite of the bow window," she replied. "But the colour of the bricks will
tone down with time."
"Salome is very contented," remarked Margaret, "but then she would be that anywhere, I
believe. She is wonderfully happy, and looks so well."
"Yes," Miss Conway agreed, "a regular nut-brown maid; and, last autumn, she was such a
pale, little soul. Mrs. Moyle was telling me yesterday how much she misses her. The Moyles
have been good friends to the Pethericks."
Mr. and Mrs. Fowler were seated beneath the lilac tree when the children and the
governess entered the grounds. Gerald was the first to spy his parents; and he raced
across the lawn to them; and informed them that he had told Josiah of their expected
guest, and had bidden him clean his boat in readiness for use.
When Mrs. Lute arrived on the morrow, she was agreeably surprised to note the
improvement in Mrs. Fowler's health, and complimented her upon her "Cornish roses," as
she called the bright colour in her friend's cheeks, whilst Margaret listened with secret
satisfaction and happiness, and meeting her father's eyes, saw that he was delighted, too.
Mrs. Fowler was no longer the neurotic, dissatisfied invalid who had been brought to
Greystone almost against her will; but a bright, companionable woman, taking a lively
interest in her household, and anxious for the welfare of those she loved. She and her little
daughter had been drawn very closely together during the past few months; and they had
discovered that they had many interests in common. Both were devoted to music, and
Mrs. Fowler had of late fallen into the habit of accompanying Margaret to the church to
hear her practise on the organ; and there, often, Salome would join them, and sing at the
earnest request of the others her favourite hymn.
It was Gerald who, when the family at Greystone was at breakfast on the morning after
Mrs. Lute's arrival, began to talk of Josiah Petherick. Mrs. Lute had not heard the exciting
story of the fire, and the little boy told it with considerable gusto, afterwards explaining
what the new cottage was like.
"You have missed the chief point of the story, Gerald," his father said, when at length the
tale was brought to a conclusion.
"Have I, father?"
"Yes. You have not told how being burnt out of house and home affected Josiah." He
turned to Mrs. Lute as he added: "The man has not touched a drop of any kind of
intoxicating liquor since."
"Well done!" she exclaimed heartily. "That is news worth hearing. I have so often
wondered this past winter how those Pethericks were getting on. The sad, pale face of that
lame girl haunted my memory for many a day. And, do you know, when I got home, I
thought so much of the many discussions we had had upon the drink question, with the
result that I came to the conclusion that I had been wrong all along. And that because I
only took stimulants sparingly myself, I had no right to put temptation in the way of
others; and so, I've banished intoxicating liquors from my house altogether. What do you
say to that?"
There was a murmur of surprise mingled with commendation, and everyone agreed that
Mrs. Lute had done well. Certain it was that she had acted from the best possible motive—
consideration for her fellow-creatures. She was one of the kindest of women; and the
thought that she might do harm to a weaker brother or sister by allowing stimulants to be
used in her household had never crossed her mind, until she had visited at Greystone, and
the master of the house had unfolded his new principles to her. Thinking the matter over
quietly afterwards, she had seen that he was right.
And now it is time for us to say good-bye to this little village by the Cornish sea. But we
will linger a moment to take a farewell glimpse of those whose lives we have followed for
one short year as they are gathered together one Sunday evening in the old grey church.
The Vicar has finished his sermon, and has given out the hymn with which the service will
be brought to a close, and in another minute the congregation is singing "Abide with me."
Margaret, from her position by her mother's side, can easily distinguish Salome's clear,
bird-like notes, and Josiah Petherick's deep, bass voice; and as she joins in the well-known
hymn, her soul rises to the throne of God in a fervent prayer of thanksgiving and joy. The
church is growing dim and shadowy in the evening light; but the black shadow that
threatened to ruin the happiness of two homes has fled; and there is no cloud on Margaret
Fowler's fair face, whilst the lame girl's voice has a ring of triumph in its tone as she sings
the concluding words of the beautiful hymn—
"Heaven's morning breaks, and earth's vain shadows flee;

In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me."
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY THE WHITEFRIARS PRESS, LTD.;
LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SALOME'S
BURDEN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Us Presidents and The Destruction of The Native American Nations 1St Ed 2021 Edition Michael A Genovese All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Us Presidents and The Destruction of The Native American Nations 1St Ed 2021 Edition Michael A Genovese All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

US Presidents and the Destruction of

the Native American Nations 1st ed.

US Presidents and the

Foreword by Russell Begaye

More information about this series at

The Evolving American Presidency

When researching how U.S. Presidents or U.S. Congress developed

Our desire is to engage in real dialog and authentic government-to-

need to know the history of federal–tribal relationships as they author the

Window Rock, AZ, USA Russell Begaye

Michael Genovese remembers sitting in a college freshman U.S. history

way to win The Oregon Trail is to be white. It took a quarter of a century

Los Angeles, USA Michael A. Genovese

Many people beyond the co-authors of this book gave of themselves to

1 Introduction: Building an “Empire of Reason”

Table 1.1 Approach to Native Americans 6

Introduction: Building an “Empire of Reason”

One would be hard-pressed to give the government of the United States a

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

extraction, colonization, and imperial conquest. They settled along the

• relations between the federal and state governments (often at odds

So many of these questions were raised at the very beginning of the

parameters, but they do make choices, decisions, up or down, yes or no,

America’s Two Original Sins

These exploitative relationships, applied against people of color, had to

Table 1.1 Approach

Table 1.2 Policy options

Accommodate Assimilate Regulate Delegate Subordinate Exterminate

Accept Domesticate Reservations To states

Europeans Arrive in the (Not-So) New World

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 9

No civilization arose in isolation, as the flowing genius of a single people.

Given the hundreds of tribal nations that populated the Americas, it

The Iroquois Confederacy

governed primarily by a sense of pride, belonging, and connectedness

Women thus played a prominent role in leadership selection as well as the

… there is no coercive power… Their Kings can do no more than persuade.

In Comparison to European political leaders, both peace and war chiefs

The chiefs had little “power” in the conventional sense. As French

Unlike Europe of the time, rights of birth were generally inconsequen-

Many of these concepts seem alien to us, and to an extent, those in

Impact on the Framers

Having frequent Occasions to hold public Councils, they have acquired

Adams felt that instead of attempting to implement Indian governments

legislation of the Indians” while developing a new constitution for the

Personal liberty was so important to American Indians, according to

Legal Scholar Felix Cohen wrote that:

It is out of rich Indian democratic tradition that the distinctive political

John Adams, in his three-volume survey of different forms of govern-

At many levels, the Constitution composed at Philadelphia – that is, prior

white human life. The Constitution separated government into branches

Despite these differences, it must be emphasized that replication should

If structurally, the presidency bears only marginal similarity to the

Clearly, tribal nations and governments had some impact on the

The emerging style of leadership practiced in the West corresponds

perhaps just as important to us as it was to the framers of the Constitution:

The Founding Myth

The Genocide Question

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to

This definition highlights the two elements of genocide as physical—one

6. Quotes in Josephy, The Patriot Chiefs, pp. 8–9.

The Founding Era: Establishing

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 27