Declarations of Independence: Indigenous Resilience, Colonial Rivalries, and the Cost of Revolution

BOOK REVIEW: Declarations of Independence: Indigenous Resilience, Colonial Rivalries, and the Cost of Revolution by Christopher R. Pearl (University of Virginia Press, 2024. $33.95 Paperback)

Christopher Pearl’s Declarations of Independence seeks to highlight diverse experiences, motivations, and differing views on independence. Historians have examined these topics before from an ideological and theoretical point of view, including asking questions of “whose revolution was it?” and “what did the revolution mean” to the various groups within what would become the United States. Pearl examines the Susquehanna nations and their conflict with “Fair Play” squatters in Pennsylvania, arguing that these groups had different ideas of what the revolution meant. While squatters defined individual liberty by claiming ownership of native lands, natives understood liberty as the right to defend their culture and sovereignty (pages 8-10). Other themes within Pearl’s work are government ineffectiveness or complacency and racialized violence.

Pearl sets the stage with an anecdote that the “Fair Play” republic of squatters, whose historical marker in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania allegedly marks the site of the Tiadaghton Elm, where some met to draft their own declaration of independence to break away from Great Britain. The elm tree no longer exists, and historians question whether the event ever occurred. Pearl uses the anecdote to remind readers that the “grand visions of equality [and] individualism” perpetuated by this popular memory obscures the complexities of the story.

Chapter one explains the colonial spoils system, which granted land due to political patronage and elitism. This system disadvantaged both Native Americans and squatters. Most squatters in Pennsylvania were German or Scots-Irish fighting against not only the patronage system, but also xenophobic and nativist attitudes. Without any recourse, these squatters made home on land west of the Susquehanna River; the mostly immigrant squatters came to America to have a better life and to create a living. But the amicable relations with indigenous peoples established by William Penn or “Brother Onas” were not shared and upheld by other colonists. And squatters impacted the Haudenosaunee’s sovereignty and destroyed their environment. Later, Haudenosaunee delegates met in Philadelphia to discuss encroachment on their native lands. Pearl also emphasizes the Susquehanna were keenly aware of their strategic importance to the British against the French (p. 25-28, 35-37).

Advertisement

Chapter two traces the origins of the uneasiness and thereby displacement of the Ohio nations. The Haudenosaunee sought to protect their tributaries from displacement efforts. But, British colonists advocated for settlers’ protection from native violence. As was the case with most Native Americans, their so-called white brethren did not answer pleas for help. Pearl demonstrates that the ineffectiveness and prejudice of the colonial government worsened the situation. But, indigenous peoples were not without their own agency or awareness.

Chapter three demonstrates how Natives fought for “their own causes, sovereignty, and security” and also understood the racially prejudiced system they faced. Lenape leader Teedyuscung’s efforts to secure culture and home for his people are highlighted.The hardships facing indigenous peoples are explored further in chapter four, which examines the construction of Fort Augusta, and its role in policing and subjugating native communities. The fort’s association with British military policies, particularly those of Jeffrey Amherst, epitomizes the racialized violence directed at indigenous peoples during this period (p. 66-71).³ Even the idea of “land use” and what makes it civilized was wrapped up in Eurocentric and racist attitudes of the time. In chapter five, Pearl explains that the British and Haudenosaunee were beginning to see themselves as separate, leading to Pontiac’s war. I do question this; given that most colonists dehumanized indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, Pearl explains how both white squatters and natives used religion and culture to justify the other’s eradication. Again, Scots-Irish immigrants’ believed in their right to own land, and also to drive out “heathens” there (quoting the Book of Joshua). In turn, natives such as the Lenni Lenape Neolin used visions and elements of Christianity to suggest a complete breakaway from Europeans by purifying themselves and driving out the invaders.

Chapter six traces the founding of the Treaty of Stanwix. The interpretation of this event is viewed through indigenous eyes, highlighting the complexities of reactions from the various Susquehanna nations. Pearl ties chapters five and six back to his main argument: that many indigenous peoples’ decision making rested on their “future.” The treaty’s boundary line separating native and British lands was a physical representation of a divide that had already begun (p. 120-123).

Chapters seven through nine are where Pearl’s argument really shines. He traces the rise of the Fair Play republic and their “hatred of land speculators, corrupt politicians, and Native Americans.” While these squatters possessed an ideology of community and individualism, the vision of this new government excluded Native Americans. White colonists consumed and spread their own prejudices and racialized propaganda (like in reports of the Battle of Wyoming), bolstered by resistance efforts and eventual revolution against the British monarchy. Meanwhile, native tribes became increasingly divided in their decisions. Natives such as Seneca chief Sayenqueraghta sided with the British to “stave off subjugation and slavery” from the encroaching Americans. Ironically, the Fair Play Republic and other revolutionary groups used similar justifications for breaking away from Great Britain. Pearl suggests these particular military actions and propaganda efforts lost indigenous support for the Patriot “Cause.” But, it could also be a culmination over time in witnessing colonial (later American) settlers overtake or destroy their lands, break treaties, and even kill their populace (p. 215-226).

Advertisement

Native Americans have historically been overlooked when it comes to interpreting the meaning of the American Revolution. They were treated as pieces on a chess board, to be moved around or disposed of for the construction of an empire or republic. New texts such as this one gives a voice to complex decisions made by the Susquehanna. Pearl uses sources from Native peoples, thereby giving them more agency in the founding period of the United States. They are not presented as passive bystanders of history, but as active participants in their attempts to preserve their people and culture. It is important to recognize who the colonial government (later republic) wanted to include and exclude from their ideas of freedom and citizenship. Pearl’s book reminds us that this ideology did not apply to everyone. The Susquehanna nations matter in the story of the founding of the United States, just as much (or more so) as the Fair Play Republic does.

PLEASE CONSIDER PURCHASING THIS BOOK FROM AMAZON IN PAPERBACK OR KINDLE.
(As an Amazon Associate, JAR earns from qualifying purchases. This helps toward providing our content free of charge.)