ChaseDream
搜索
1234下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 7849|回复: 32
打印 上一主题 下一主题

美国历史 Beginnings–1776

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-7-10 10:57:00 | 显示全部楼层

美国历史 Beginnings–1776

美国历史

(一)Beginnings–1776 。

共三大部分(Events and topics, People, and Primary Souces) . 每一大部分有10小部分。我将陆续贴出来。

Events and Topics

1.

Boston Tea Party

Date: 1773 
From:
      Encyclopedia of American History: Revolution and New Nation, 1761 to 1812, vol. 3.
     

rintPage('AHI1088','AmericanHistory')">
  

The Boston Tea Party was an important protest of British tax policies that helped push the colonies closer to revolution, both because of the spirit of resistance it aroused among the colonists and because of the retaliation it would bring from England. The Boston Tea Party was preceded by Parliament's passage of the rintPage('EAHIII359','AmericanHistory');">Tea Act in early 1773. At this time, the rintPage('EAHI120','AmericanHistory');">East India Company was on the verge of bankruptcy and so asked the British government for assistance. In order to aid the company, the government granted it a monopoly on all tea exported to the colonies. Even more irksome to the colonists was an additional provision that allowed the East India Company to sell its tea directly to colonial merchants, thus bypassing the colonial wholesalers. Most of the tea consumed in the colonies was illegally smuggled Dutch tea. Because the East India Company would be selling tea directly through its agents, the price would be much lower than that paid for the smuggled tea. On the surface, this new plan seemed ideal for everyone: The colonists would be able to purchase inexpensive tea, the East India Company would be saved from bankruptcy, and the government would obtain some additional revenue from taxing the tea. However, the act aroused the colonial merchants who would no longer be able to profit from smuggling and who were also concerned about the issue of monopolies. The fear that Parliament might grant other monopolies pushed the conservative colonial merchants to side with the more radical colonists. Ignoring the benefit of cheaper tea, other colonists also protested the Tea Act because they felt it was an attempt by rintPage('EAHI288','AmericanHistory');">Parliament to demonstrate its taxing power. The Tea Act was clearly not a scheme by Parliament to force the colonists to drink taxed tea at a low price, but the colonists perceived it as such and acted on this interpretation.

In September 1773 the East India Company planned to ship 500,000 pounds of tea to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. By this time opposition had grown, and colonial merchants agreed not to sell the tea. The tea agents in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston canceled their orders or resigned their positions as tea agents. In these cities, the shipments of tea were either returned to England or stored in warehouses. However, in Boston, most of the tea agents were friends or relatives of Governor rintPage('EAHIII187','AmericanHistory');">Thomas Hutchinson, who was sympathetic to the British and felt it was important to uphold the supremacy of the government. Opposition in the city was rampant, though, and was led by rintPage('EAHIII003','AmericanHistory');">Samuel Adams, rintPage('EAHIII306','AmericanHistory');">Josiah Quincy, and rintPage('EAHIII176','AmericanHistory');">John Hancock in the form of the rintPage('EAHIII082','AmericanHistory');">committee of correspondence and the rintPage('EAHIII340','AmericanHistory');">Sons of Liberty. When the first East India Company ship reached Boston with its cargo of tea in November 1773, these radical groups prevented the owner from unloading the tea. They quickly convinced the captains of these ships to leave without unloading the tea, but Governor Hutchinson would not give them clearance to do so. According to the law, the tea had to be unloaded within 20 days or it would be seized and sold to pay custom duties. The radicals did not want to see this happen either because they felt that this would still constitute payment of unconstitutional taxes. Ultimately, Hutchinson's refusal to allow the tea ships to return to England led to dramatic action. On the night of December 16, 1773, encouraged by several thousand townspeople, about 60 men disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and boarded the three ships that were in Boston Harbor. With the aid of the ships' crews these quite unconvincing "Indians" broke open the chests of tea and threw about $10,000 worth of the East India Company's property into Boston Bay. The patriots took this radical step because they feared that if the tea were unloaded, most of the colonists would buy it at the cheaper price.

The Boston Tea Party was an effective piece of political theater, inspiring further action and revolutionary sentiment. Furthermore, it pushed the situation with Britain to the point of crisis. The British government had to deal with this action swiftly and decisively. The East India Company had operated completely within the bounds of law, and if the destruction of the tea went unpunished, Parliament would be admitting that it had lost control over the colonies. British officials condemned the Boston Tea Party as vandalism and passed the Coercive Acts (1774), which practically eliminated self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's port until the colony paid for the tea. The news of the destruction of the tea promoted resistance in other colonies as well. In April 1774 one of the East India Company's ships attempted to land tea at New York. It was boarded by a mob in an occurrence similar to Boston's, and the tea it was carrying was destroyed. Other incidents occurred in cities such as Annapolis, Maryland. East India Company tea continued to be boycotted throughout the colonies.

The Boston Tea Party was an important protest of British tax policies that helped push the colonies closer to revolution, both because of the spirit of resistance it aroused among the colonists and because of the retaliation it would bring from England. The Boston Tea Party was preceded by Parliament's passage of the Tea Act in early 1773. At this time, the East India Company was on the verge of bankruptcy and so asked the British government for assistance. In order to aid the company, the government granted it a monopoly on all tea exported to the colonies. Even more irksome to the colonists was an additional provision that allowed the East India Company to sell its tea directly to colonial merchants, thus bypassing the colonial wholesalers. Most of the tea consumed in the colonies was illegally smuggled Dutch tea. Because the East India Company would be selling tea directly through its agents, the price would be much lower than that paid for the smuggled tea. On the surface, this new plan seemed ideal for everyone: The colonists would be able to purchase inexpensive tea, the East India Company would be saved from bankruptcy, and the government would obtain some additional revenue from taxing the tea. However, the act aroused the colonial merchants who would no longer be able to profit from smuggling and who were also concerned about the issue of monopolies. The fear that Parliament might grant other monopolies pushed the conservative colonial merchants to side with the more radical colonists. Ignoring the benefit of cheaper tea, other colonists also protested the Tea Act because they felt it was an attempt by Parliament to demonstrate its taxing power. The Tea Act was clearly not a scheme by Parliament to force the colonists to drink taxed tea at a low price, but the colonists perceived it as such and acted on this interpretation.

In September 1773 the East India Company planned to ship 500,000 pounds of tea to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. By this time opposition had grown, and colonial merchants agreed not to sell the tea. The tea agents in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston canceled their orders or resigned their positions as tea agents. In these cities, the shipments of tea were either returned to England or stored in warehouses. However, in Boston, most of the tea agents were friends or relatives of Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was sympathetic to the British and felt it was important to uphold the supremacy of the government. Opposition in the city was rampant, though, and was led by Samuel Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock in the form of the committee of correspondence and the Sons of Liberty. When the first East India Company ship reached Boston with its cargo of tea in November 1773, these radical groups prevented the owner from unloading the tea. They quickly convinced the captains of these ships to leave without unloading the tea, but Governor Hutchinson would not give them clearance to do so. According to the law, the tea had to be unloaded within 20 days or it would be seized and sold to pay custom duties. The radicals did not want to see this happen either because they felt that this would still constitute payment of unconstitutional taxes. Ultimately, Hutchinson's refusal to allow the tea ships to return to England led to dramatic action. On the night of December 16, 1773, encouraged by several thousand townspeople, about 60 men disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and boarded the three ships that were in Boston Harbor. With the aid of the ships' crews these quite unconvincing "Indians" broke open the chests of tea and threw about $10,000 worth of the East India Company's property into Boston Bay. The patriots took this radical step because they feared that if the tea were unloaded, most of the colonists would buy it at the cheaper price.

The Boston Tea Party was an effective piece of political theater, inspiring further action and revolutionary sentiment. Furthermore, it pushed the situation with Britain to the point of crisis. The British government had to deal with this action swiftly and decisively. The East India Company had operated completely within the bounds of law, and if the destruction of the tea went unpunished, Parliament would be admitting that it had lost control over the colonies. British officials condemned the Boston Tea Party as vandalism and passed the Coercive Acts (1774), which practically eliminated self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's port until the colony paid for the tea. The news of the destruction of the tea promoted resistance in other colonies as well. In April 1774 one of the East India Company's ships attempted to land tea at New York. It was boarded by a mob in an occurrence similar to Boston's, and the tea it was carrying was destroyed. Other incidents occurred in cities such as Annapolis, Maryland. East India Company tea continued to be boycotted throughout the colonies.

The Boston Tea Party was an important protest of British tax policies that helped push the colonies closer to revolution, both because of the spirit of resistance it aroused among the colonists and because of the retaliation it would bring from England. The Boston Tea Party was preceded by Parliament's passage of the Tea Act in early 1773. At this time, the East India Company was on the verge of bankruptcy and so asked the British government for assistance. In order to aid the company, the government granted it a monopoly on all tea exported to the colonies. Even more irksome to the colonists was an additional provision that allowed the East India Company to sell its tea directly to colonial merchants, thus bypassing the colonial wholesalers. Most of the tea consumed in the colonies was illegally smuggled Dutch tea. Because the East India Company would be selling tea directly through its agents, the price would be much lower than that paid for the smuggled tea. On the surface, this new plan seemed ideal for everyone: The colonists would be able to purchase inexpensive tea, the East India Company would be saved from bankruptcy, and the government would obtain some additional revenue from taxing the tea. However, the act aroused the colonial merchants who would no longer be able to profit from smuggling and who were also concerned about the issue of monopolies. The fear that Parliament might grant other monopolies pushed the conservative colonial merchants to side with the more radical colonists. Ignoring the benefit of cheaper tea, other colonists also protested the Tea Act because they felt it was an attempt by Parliament to demonstrate its taxing power. The Tea Act was clearly not a scheme by Parliament to force the colonists to drink taxed tea at a low price, but the colonists perceived it as such and acted on this interpretation.

In September 1773 the East India Company planned to ship 500,000 pounds of tea to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. By this time opposition had grown, and colonial merchants agreed not to sell the tea. The tea agents in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston canceled their orders or resigned their positions as tea agents. In these cities, the shipments of tea were either returned to England or stored in warehouses. However, in Boston, most of the tea agents were friends or relatives of Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was sympathetic to the British and felt it was important to uphold the supremacy of the government. Opposition in the city was rampant, though, and was led by Samuel Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock in the form of the committee of correspondence and the Sons of Liberty. When the first East India Company ship reached Boston with its cargo of tea in November 1773, these radical groups prevented the owner from unloading the tea. They quickly convinced the captains of these ships to leave without unloading the tea, but Governor Hutchinson would not give them clearance to do so. According to the law, the tea had to be unloaded within 20 days or it would be seized and sold to pay custom duties. The radicals did not want to see this happen either because they felt that this would still constitute payment of unconstitutional taxes. Ultimately, Hutchinson's refusal to allow the tea ships to return to England led to dramatic action. On the night of December 16, 1773, encouraged by several thousand townspeople, about 60 men disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and boarded the three ships that were in Boston Harbor. With the aid of the ships' crews these quite unconvincing "Indians" broke open the chests of tea and threw about $10,000 worth of the East India Company's property into Boston Bay. The patriots took this radical step because they feared that if the tea were unloaded, most of the colonists would buy it at the cheaper price.

The Boston Tea Party was an effective piece of political theater, inspiring further action and revolutionary sentiment. Furthermore, it pushed the situation with Britain to the point of crisis. The British government had to deal with this action swiftly and decisively. The East India Company had operated completely within the bounds of law, and if the destruction of the tea went unpunished, Parliament would be admitting that it had lost control over the colonies. British officials condemned the Boston Tea Party as vandalism and passed the Coercive Acts (1774), which practically eliminated self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's port until the colony paid for the tea. The news of the destruction of the tea promoted resistance in other colonies as well. In April 1774 one of the East India Company's ships attempted to land tea at New York. It was boarded by a mob in an occurrence similar to Boston's, and the tea it was carrying was destroyed. Other incidents occurred in cities such as Annapolis, Maryland. East India Company tea continued to be boycotted throughout the colonies.

The Boston Tea Party was an important protest of British tax policies that helped push the colonies closer to revolution, both because of the spirit of resistance it aroused among the colonists and because of the retaliation it would bring from England. The Boston Tea Party was preceded by Parliament's passage of the Tea Act in early 1773. At this time, the East India Company was on the verge of bankruptcy and so asked the British government for assistance. In order to aid the company, the government granted it a monopoly on all tea exported to the colonies. Even more irksome to the colonists was an additional provision that allowed the East India Company to sell its tea directly to colonial merchants, thus bypassing the colonial wholesalers. Most of the tea consumed in the colonies was illegally smuggled Dutch tea. Because the East India Company would be selling tea directly through its agents, the price would be much lower than that paid for the smuggled tea. On the surface, this new plan seemed ideal for everyone: The colonists would be able to purchase inexpensive tea, the East India Company would be saved from bankruptcy, and the government would obtain some additional revenue from taxing the tea. However, the act aroused the colonial merchants who would no longer be able to profit from smuggling and who were also concerned about the issue of monopolies. The fear that Parliament might grant other monopolies pushed the conservative colonial merchants to side with the more radical colonists. Ignoring the benefit of cheaper tea, other colonists also protested the Tea Act because they felt it was an attempt by Parliament to demonstrate its taxing power. The Tea Act was clearly not a scheme by Parliament to force the colonists to drink taxed tea at a low price, but the colonists perceived it as such and acted on this interpretation.

In September 1773 the East India Company planned to ship 500,000 pounds of tea to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. By this time opposition had grown, and colonial merchants agreed not to sell the tea. The tea agents in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston canceled their orders or resigned their positions as tea agents. In these cities, the shipments of tea were either returned to England or stored in warehouses. However, in Boston, most of the tea agents were friends or relatives of Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was sympathetic to the British and felt it was important to uphold the supremacy of the government. Opposition in the city was rampant, though, and was led by Samuel Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock in the form of the committee of correspondence and the Sons of Liberty. When the first East India Company ship reached Boston with its cargo of tea in November 1773, these radical groups prevented the owner from unloading the tea. They quickly convinced the captains of these ships to leave without unloading the tea, but Governor Hutchinson would not give them clearance to do so. According to the law, the tea had to be unloaded within 20 days or it would be seized and sold to pay custom duties. The radicals did not want to see this happen either because they felt that this would still constitute payment of unconstitutional taxes. Ultimately, Hutchinson's refusal to allow the tea ships to return to England led to dramatic action. On the night of December 16, 1773, encouraged by several thousand townspeople, about 60 men disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and boarded the three ships that were in Boston Harbor. With the aid of the ships' crews these quite unconvincing "Indians" broke open the chests of tea and threw about $10,000 worth of the East India Company's property into Boston Bay. The patriots took this radical step because they feared that if the tea were unloaded, most of the colonists would buy it at the cheaper price.

The Boston Tea Party was an effective piece of political theater, inspiring further action and revolutionary sentiment. Furthermore, it pushed the situation with Britain to the point of crisis. The British government had to deal with this action swiftly and decisively. The East India Company had operated completely within the bounds of law, and if the destruction of the tea went unpunished, Parliament would be admitting that it had lost control over the colonies. British officials condemned the Boston Tea Party as vandalism and passed the Coercive Acts (1774), which practically eliminated self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's port until the colony paid for the tea. The news of the destruction of the tea promoted resistance in other colonies as well. In April 1774 one of the East India Company's ships attempted to land tea at New York. It was boarded by a mob in an occurrence similar to Boston's, and the tea it was carrying was destroyed. Other incidents occurred in cities such as Annapolis, Maryland. East India Company tea continued to be boycotted throughout the colonies.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-10 11:46:51编辑过]
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:58:00 | 显示全部楼层
2

Jamestown

From:
                    Encyclopedia of American History: Colonization and Settlement, 1608 to 1760, vol. 2.
                

rintPage('AHI1639','AmericanHistory')">
        

Called "James City" by its English settlers, Jamestown was settled under the auspices of the rintPage('EAHII418','AmericanHistory');">Virginia Company of London in 1607 on James Island, a deep-water anchorage 60 miles up the James River from where it empties into rintPage('EAHII074','AmericanHistory');">Chesapeake Bay. To English eyes the north bank of the James west to its confluence with the Chickahominy may have appeared to be "unused" wilderness, but it actually was the domain of the Paspiheigh tribe of the rintPage('EAHII326','AmericanHistory');">Powhatan Confederacy, a people who actively occupied and exploited it, but not in the ways to which the English were accustomed. The Paspiheigh immediately contested the English claims to "ownership through use," sending clouds of arrows over the palisaded walls surrounding James City's wattle-and-daub huts. To defend themselves against the Paspiheigh and possible incursions of Spanish warships, the English built James Fort on high ground away from the river, and it become the core around which James City and the colony expanded.

The Virginia Company founded James City at an inauspicious time. The Chesapeake region and its Powhatan inhabitants were suffering under the most severe drought in seven centuries, sparking an agricultural crisis that limited the amount of rintPage('EAHII145','AmericanHistory');">food the Powhatan could willingly trade for the copper jewelry, glass beads, and other goods manufactured by James City rintPage('EAHII022','AmericanHistory');">artisans. The English settlers hoped the exchange of these manufactured goods for food would sustain them until they could become self-sufficient producers of their own foodstuffs. When the Powhatan judged trade to be disadvantageous or dishonorable and withheld their foodstuffs, the desperate English under rintPage('EAHII379','AmericanHistory');">John Smith bullied and browbeat corn from them and sacked and burned their villages, which unleashed a decades-long guerrilla war punctuated by brief periods of uneasy peace.

James City's neighbors, the Paspiheigh, were the immediate victims of the warfare. In February 1610 the English killed the Paspiheigh werowance Wowinchopunk. After the starving winter of 1609–10, George Percy sallied forth from James City, burned the Paspiheigh village, and put the captured Paspiheigh queen to the sword after executing her children by "Throweinge them overboard and shoteinge owtt their Braynes." Between 1616 and 1669 the Paspiheigh disappeared from the Virginia census, yet by 1612 there were Indians living in James Fort and working for the colonists. A number of intermarriages occurred between English working men and Indian women, a practice strenuously denounced by the upper-class clergy of James City as "uncivilized."

Drought also increased the James River's deadly salinity, thereby contributing to the extreme mortality in the early years. Only 38 of the original 104 settlers survived the first year of settlement, causing the premature evacuation of James City itself. Between 1607 and 1625 nearly 5,000 of the 6,000 European immigrants died from diseases like typhoid as well as malnutrition and conflict with natives. Virginia became a "death trap," and were it not for rintPage('EAHII353','AmericanHistory');">John Rolfe's successful experiments with rintPage('EAHII407','AmericanHistory');">tobacco, rintPage('EAHII273','AmericanHistory');">mortality may have outpaced immigration for most of the century. Tobacco quickly became Virginia's chief and most profitable export. Tobacco exports rose from 20,000 pounds in 1617 to more than 40 million pounds by 1727, overwhelming European competitors. James City became a boomtown, with tobacco cultivated even in its streets.

English merchants supplied planters with manufactured goods and indentured servants, predominantly young men; merchants returned home with profitable cargoes of the "stinking leafe." Many servants were from the lower classes—the poor, vagrant, and imprisoned—judged by the English and Virginians to be "the vile and brutish part of mankind," fit only for forced labor. Others came from respectable artisan and yeoman families, but once in Virginia were worked hard, often mistreated, bought, sold, and even gambled away by their masters. Before 1670 these bonded laborers came from the lower and "middling" classes of southern and western England but were quickly replaced by slaves from Africa and the Caribbean.

In 1619 John Rolfe, the father of the tobacco boom, reported that "there came in a Dutch man-of-warre that sold us 20 negars," an addition to the 31 Africans already there "in the service of all planters." Within a generation of their arrival, lifetime bondage for African servants became an established custom, although not yet recognized in law. In the same year James City witnessed the arrival of "Young maids to make wives for so many of the former Tenants," to be sold by the Virginia Company for not less than "one hundredth and fiftie [pounds] of the best leafe Tobacco." The importation of European and African laborers to toil in households and on tobacco fields swelled the colony's population from a few hundred English colonists in 1618 to 13,000 by 1674, 800 of whom lived in James City.

Under its 1618 charter the Virginia Company hoped to concentrate settlers in four boroughs—James City, Charles City, Henrico, and Kecoughtan—in which life and government would be that of a municipality rather than that of an English county. The tobacco boom, however, sparked a "plantation revolution" that by the 1620s spread the settlement into 49 tobacco plantations up the James River all the way to the fall line. By the 1620s James City experienced its own suburban sprawl marked by small satellite settlements spreading out farther into Paspiheigh lands. As planters fanned out along rivers and bays, English tobacco merchants were able sail their ships right to the plantations' wharves, thereby diminishing the commercial importance of the four boroughs; they were soon supplanted by organization of local government by counties. "[T]he Advantage of the many Rivers which afforded a commodious Road for Shipping at eveery Man's Door," Robert Beverley noted in 1705, [resulted in] "not any one Place of Cohabitation among them, that may reasonably bear the Name of a Town." The unceasing intrusion of European settlement into Indian lands also ignited the Powhatan resistances of 1622, 1644, and 1676, resulting in the deaths of substantial numbers of English settlers whose distance from towns made them highly vulnerable to attack. Settlers would scurry to the protection of James Fort during these outbreaks but just as quickly return to their wide-flung estates when hostilities cooled.

After the demise of the Virginia Company, James City developed in "fits and starts" in three waves: in the 1620s and 1630s, in the 1660s, and in the 1680s. James City's development was planned and implemented not according to the dispersed settlement patterns dictated by the new maritime tobacco trade but according to a model of what Virginia speculators saw to be the lucrative possibilities of the emerging English manufacturing towns, specifically, developing urban industries and constructing and renting quarters for workers attracted to such enterprises. In the 1630s Governor John Harvey encouraged the commercial development of James City by declaring it Virginia's sole port of entry. He also encouraged the immigration of skilled artisans, particularly brickmakers and bricklayers, to build up the town and manufacture items for sale at home and abroad. Harvey's industrial schemes failed, but they were revived after 1660 by speculators such as Philip Ludwell, who invested heavily in James City land, built brick row houses to quarter artisans and workers, and otherwise attempted to create a James City that was more than a statehouse and "a collection of taverns serving those coming to the capital on official business." The Town Act of 1662 required each of the 19 counties to construct a substantial brick building in James City, and it reimbursed individuals who undertook similar construction. James City's fire-prone wooden frame buildings thereby were gradually replaced by brick structures that conformed more closely to the fire and building codes of an English town.

Widespread settlement also shifted political, social, and ecclesiastical control from the governor and his council in James City to the county courts, which were dominated by local elites comprised of the largest planters in the county. These men were not the high-born sons of the English aristocracy who sat on the governor's council during the company period or who constituted the first General Assembly that met in the choir of the James City church in 1619. They were the tough, ambitious, land-grabbing, Indian-hating, self-made men who preempted lands of the Virginia Company after its dissolution and who ousted Governor Harvey in 1635 for his commercial schemes and conservative Indian policies. They in turn died away and were replaced from the 1640s onward by the immigration of a third generation of leaders—Bland, Byrd, Carter, Culpeper, Digges, Burwell, Ludwell, and Mason—the well-connected younger sons of English merchant families long associated with Virginia. Based on family land in the colony, inherited wealth, or family shares of original Virginia Company stock, they built up substantial plantations from lands already cleared and cultivated by the first and second generations of Virginians. They gradually assumed places of power and authority in the county courts, the assembly, and the governor's council and founded the great 18th-century Virginia ruling dynasties.

The transition to a stable, country aristocracy married to the maritime tobacco trade ultimately spelled the demise of James City. It lost its status as the mandatory port of entry for Virginia in 1662, at a time in which tobacco production and, therefore, political power was beginning to shift northward. Conflict between jealous local magnates and Governor Berkeley and his "Green Spring Faction" over their monopoly of provincial offices and patronage ignited Bacon's Rebellion. In 1676 Nathaniel Bacon burned down James City to deny its use to Governor Berkeley.

The final wave of development in James City in the 1680s consisted of its rebuilding after Bacon's conflagration, but rebuilding on a modest scale without the grandeur of earlier years. Jamestown, thereafter, became little more than the seat of provincial government, although surrounding James City County tripled in population from 1674 to 1699. In 1698 James City's statehouse again burned to the ground. The growing power held by residents of York County, men such as James Page of Middle Plantation, made that settlement the logical successor to James City as the colony's new capital. The following year the capital of Virginia was moved to the new town site of Williamsburg, formerly Middle Plantation. James City gradually disappeared, and the old town site on James Island was taken over by the Ambler and Travis plantations, on which the bicentennial of Jamestown was celebrated in 1807.

Called "James City" by its English settlers, Jamestown was settled under the auspices of the Virginia Company of London in 1607 on James Island, a deep-water anchorage 60 miles up the James River from where it empties into Chesapeake Bay. To English eyes the north bank of the James west to its confluence with the Chickahominy may have appeared to be "unused" wilderness, but it actually was the domain of the Paspiheigh tribe of the Powhatan Confederacy, a people who actively occupied and exploited it, but not in the ways to which the English were accustomed. The Paspiheigh immediately contested the English claims to "ownership through use," sending clouds of arrows over the palisaded walls surrounding James City's wattle-and-daub huts. To defend themselves against the Paspiheigh and possible incursions of Spanish warships, the English built James Fort on high ground away from the river, and it become the core around which James City and the colony expanded.

The Virginia Company founded James City at an inauspicious time. The Chesapeake region and its Powhatan inhabitants were suffering under the most severe drought in seven centuries, sparking an agricultural crisis that limited the amount of food the Powhatan could willingly trade for the copper jewelry, glass beads, and other goods manufactured by James City artisans. The English settlers hoped the exchange of these manufactured goods for food would sustain them until they could become self-sufficient producers of their own foodstuffs. When the Powhatan judged trade to be disadvantageous or dishonorable and withheld their foodstuffs, the desperate English under John Smith bullied and browbeat corn from them and sacked and burned their villages, which unleashed a decades-long guerrilla war punctuated by brief periods of uneasy peace.

James City's neighbors, the Paspiheigh, were the immediate victims of the warfare. In February 1610 the English killed the Paspiheigh werowance Wowinchopunk. After the starving winter of 1609–10, George Percy sallied forth from James City, burned the Paspiheigh village, and put the captured Paspiheigh queen to the sword after executing her children by "Throweinge them overboard and shoteinge owtt their Braynes." Between 1616 and 1669 the Paspiheigh disappeared from the Virginia census, yet by 1612 there were Indians living in James Fort and working for the colonists. A number of intermarriages occurred between English working men and Indian women, a practice strenuously denounced by the upper-class clergy of James City as "uncivilized."

Drought also increased the James River's deadly salinity, thereby contributing to the extreme mortality in the early years. Only 38 of the original 104 settlers survived the first year of settlement, causing the premature evacuation of James City itself. Between 1607 and 1625 nearly 5,000 of the 6,000 European immigrants died from diseases like typhoid as well as malnutrition and conflict with natives. Virginia became a "death trap," and were it not for John Rolfe's successful experiments with tobacco, mortality may have outpaced immigration for most of the century. Tobacco quickly became Virginia's chief and most profitable export. Tobacco exports rose from 20,000 pounds in 1617 to more than 40 million pounds by 1727, overwhelming European competitors. James City became a boomtown, with tobacco cultivated even in its streets.

English merchants supplied planters with manufactured goods and indentured servants, predominantly young men; merchants returned home with profitable cargoes of the "stinking leafe." Many servants were from the lower classes—the poor, vagrant, and imprisoned—judged by the English and Virginians to be "the vile and brutish part of mankind," fit only for forced labor. Others came from respectable artisan and yeoman families, but once in Virginia were worked hard, often mistreated, bought, sold, and even gambled away by their masters. Before 1670 these bonded laborers came from the lower and "middling" classes of southern and western England but were quickly replaced by slaves from Africa and the Caribbean.

In 1619 John Rolfe, the father of the tobacco boom, reported that "there came in a Dutch man-of-warre that sold us 20 negars," an addition to the 31 Africans already there "in the service of all planters." Within a generation of their arrival, lifetime bondage for African servants became an established custom, although not yet recognized in law. In the same year James City witnessed the arrival of "Young maids to make wives for so many of the former Tenants," to be sold by the Virginia Company for not less than "one hundredth and fiftie [pounds] of the best leafe Tobacco." The importation of European and African laborers to toil in households and on tobacco fields swelled the colony's population from a few hundred English colonists in 1618 to 13,000 by 1674, 800 of whom lived in James City.

Under its 1618 charter the Virginia Company hoped to concentrate settlers in four boroughs—James City, Charles City, Henrico, and Kecoughtan—in which life and government would be that of a municipality rather than that of an English county. The tobacco boom, however, sparked a "plantation revolution" that by the 1620s spread the settlement into 49 tobacco plantations up the James River all the way to the fall line. By the 1620s James City experienced its own suburban sprawl marked by small satellite settlements spreading out farther into Paspiheigh lands. As planters fanned out along rivers and bays, English tobacco merchants were able sail their ships right to the plantations' wharves, thereby diminishing the commercial importance of the four boroughs; they were soon supplanted by organization of local government by counties. "[T]he Advantage of the many Rivers which afforded a commodious Road for Shipping at eveery Man's Door," Robert Beverley noted in 1705, [resulted in] "not any one Place of Cohabitation among them, that may reasonably bear the Name of a Town." The unceasing intrusion of European settlement into Indian lands also ignited the Powhatan resistances of 1622, 1644, and 1676, resulting in the deaths of substantial numbers of English settlers whose distance from towns made them highly vulnerable to attack. Settlers would scurry to the protection of James Fort during these outbreaks but just as quickly return to their wide-flung estates when hostilities cooled.

After the demise of the Virginia Company, James City developed in "fits and starts" in three waves: in the 1620s and 1630s, in the 1660s, and in the 1680s. James City's development was planned and implemented not according to the dispersed settlement patterns dictated by the new maritime tobacco trade but according to a model of what Virginia speculators saw to be the lucrative possibilities of the emerging English manufacturing towns, specifically, developing urban industries and constructing and renting quarters for workers attracted to such enterprises. In the 1630s Governor John Harvey encouraged the commercial development of James City by declaring it Virginia's sole port of entry. He also encouraged the immigration of skilled artisans, particularly brickmakers and bricklayers, to build up the town and manufacture items for sale at home and abroad. Harvey's industrial schemes failed, but they were revived after 1660 by speculators such as Philip Ludwell, who invested heavily in James City land, built brick row houses to quarter artisans and workers, and otherwise attempted to create a James City that was more than a statehouse and "a collection of taverns serving those coming to the capital on official business." The Town Act of 1662 required each of the 19 counties to construct a substantial brick building in James City, and it reimbursed individuals who undertook similar construction. James City's fire-prone wooden frame buildings thereby were gradually replaced by brick structures that conformed more closely to the fire and building codes of an English town.

Widespread settlement also shifted political, social, and ecclesiastical control from the governor and his council in James City to the county courts, which were dominated by local elites comprised of the largest planters in the county. These men were not the high-born sons of the English aristocracy who sat on the governor's council during the company period or who constituted the first General Assembly that met in the choir of the James City church in 1619. They were the tough, ambitious, land-grabbing, Indian-hating, self-made men who preempted lands of the Virginia Company after its dissolution and who ousted Governor Harvey in 1635 for his commercial schemes and conservative Indian policies. They in turn died away and were replaced from the 1640s onward by the immigration of a third generation of leaders—Bland, Byrd, Carter, Culpeper, Digges, Burwell, Ludwell, and Mason—the well-connected younger sons of English merchant families long associated with Virginia. Based on family land in the colony, inherited wealth, or family shares of original Virginia Company stock, they built up substantial plantations from lands already cleared and cultivated by the first and second generations of Virginians. They gradually assumed places of power and authority in the county courts, the assembly, and the governor's council and founded the great 18th-century Virginia ruling dynasties.

The transition to a stable, country aristocracy married to the maritime tobacco trade ultimately spelled the demise of James City. It lost its status as the mandatory port of entry for Virginia in 1662, at a time in which tobacco production and, therefore, political power was beginning to shift northward. Conflict between jealous local magnates and Governor Berkeley and his "Green Spring Faction" over their monopoly of provincial offices and patronage ignited Bacon's Rebellion. In 1676 Nathaniel Bacon burned down James City to deny its use to Governor Berkeley.

The final wave of development in James City in the 1680s consisted of its rebuilding after Bacon's conflagration, but rebuilding on a modest scale without the grandeur of earlier years. Jamestown, thereafter, became little more than the seat of provincial government, although surrounding James City County tripled in population from 1674 to 1699. In 1698 James City's statehouse again burned to the ground. The growing power held by residents of York County, men such as James Page of Middle Plantation, made that settlement the logical successor to James City as the colony's new capital. The following year the capital of Virginia was moved to the new town site of Williamsburg, formerly Middle Plantation. James City gradually disappeared, and the old town site on James Island was taken over by the Ambler and Travis plantations, on which the bicentennial of Jamestown was celebrated in 1807.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-10 11:34:55编辑过]
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:58:00 | 显示全部楼层

3

First Continental Congress

Date: 1774 
From:
                        Encyclopedia of American History: Revolution and New Nation, 1761 to 1812, vol. 3.
                    

rintPage('AHI1707','AmericanHistory')">
        

The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from September 5 to October 26, 1774. It passed three important resolutions: endorsing the rintPage('EAHIII348','AmericanHistory');">Suffolk Resolves (1774), approving an economic boycott against Britain, and adopting a petition to the king detailing the colonies' rights and grievances. As an extralegal body, Congress depended upon obtaining and maintaining the support of colonial assemblies and the public. Thus delegates placed a premium on cooperation and compromise among the colonies, which were crucial for its success. Congress set the tone for future resistance to British rule and for the practice of politics in America.

Massachusetts called this meeting to formulate a response to the rintPage('EAHIII081','AmericanHistory');">Coercive Acts (1774) then being imposed upon the colony. Massachusetts's rintPage('EAHIII392','AmericanHistory');">Whig leaders sought advice and direction from the other colonies about how far they should go in resisting the Massachusetts Government Act, the Boston Port Act, and the new royal governor, rintPage('EAHIII154','AmericanHistory');">Thomas Gage. Of the original 13 colonies, only Georgia did not send a delegation to Philadelphia.

Among the 56 delegates were men destined to lead the revolution and the new nation. Cousins rintPage('PRE003','AmericanHistory');">John Adams and rintPage('EAHIII003','AmericanHistory');">Samuel Adams represented Massachusetts, and rintPage('EAHIII336','AmericanHistory');">Roger Sherman served for Connecticut. Virginia sent rintPage('EAHIII221','AmericanHistory');">Richard Henry Lee and rintPage('PRE002','AmericanHistory');">George Washington. Future chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay represented New York, and John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania attended. Not all delegates favored radical solutions. Men like Galloway searched for a moderate resolution to the crisis. Radical delegates did not dominate the proceedings, but this Congress succeeded because delegates were able forge a consensus that would help sustain unity among the colonies.

In its first public act on September 17, Congress unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves. These resolutions declared the Coercive Acts unconstitutional and recommended economic sanctions against Great Britain as the best course of resistance. Thus Congress accepted resistance but strove to avoid direct confrontation with the British troops stationed in Massachusetts. It indicated its support for Massachusetts and issued a warning to Great Britain that other colonies supported Massachusetts's actions. In addition, Congress provided direction for Massachusetts's resistance. Yet, by only approving defensive measures and rejecting proposals for more forceful action, Congress cautioned Massachusetts that not every deed would meet with unanimous approval. For the time being, resistance would remain within guidelines proposed by the Suffolk Resolves. This first resolution established two important precedents: First, by accepting congressional direction, Massachusetts allowed Congress to assert similar authority over all colonies. Second, by seeking unanimity, delegates made consensus more important than radical resistance.

Congress's second accomplishment was to approve an economic boycott of Great Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies. On September 22, Congress unanimously passed a resolution requesting the suspension of imports from Great Britain until the sense of Congress was known. Just five days later, on September 27, delegates unanimously agreed to a resolution to stop importation of British and Irish goods after December 1. They further resolved to stop exports to Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies after September 10, 1775. Thus Congress endorsed the resumption of commercial resistance first tried during the Stamp Act (1765) crisis. No one seriously questioned this path except Galloway. For the most part, the key issue was more a question of the scope of the boycott than whether to impose one at all. For example, Virginia delegates had been instructed to approve a boycott, but not one beginning before August 1775, and South Carolina wanted its staple crops—rice and indigo—exempted. Finally, on October 20, Congress formed the Continental association to execute the "non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement." Congress instructed that new local committees of safety be elected to oversee implementation and enforcement. It sanctioned extralegal committees and sought to direct and regulate their activities while allowing for local initiative and flexibility to fit each community's needs.

Third, Congress debated and approved a declaration of rights and grievances. During these debates, delegates considered the colonies' position within the British Empire and the proper interpretation of the unwritten British constitution. Galloway, who would become a loyalist, proposed a new imperial constitution. His plan of union would have created an intercolonial legislature responsible for "regulating and administering all the general police and affairs of the colonies" and during war to grant "aid to the crown." While the British Parliament would still have the power to enact laws for the colonies, all laws would have to be approved by both Parliament and the intercolonial assembly. Galloway's plan represented the most conciliatory proposal considered by Congress. Delegates effectively rejected it on September 28 on a procedural motion. New York delegates James Duane and John Jay proved more effective advocates of a moderate approach to the crisis than Galloway. Duane and Jay had the support of moderates from the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

Eight of the 10 resolutions considered for the declaration of rights passed unanimously, but not without debate. The debate focused on whether the colonies should base their grievances upon the law of nature or the British constitution. Delegates favored the latter over the former justification. The other main issue was how much authority and power colonies should concede to Parliament. The delegates rejected the resolution that defiantly asserted that colonial assemblies had the exclusive power of legislation in cases of taxation and internal policy, subject only to approval by the Crown. More conciliatory and ambiguous language replaced it. Congress agreed that colonial assemblies should assent to bona fide acts of Parliament concerning the regulation of external commerce for the general good of the British Empire. Taxation for the purpose of raising revenue was only acceptable if the colonial assemblies consented. The declaration of rights broke no new ground and was consistent with the constitutional arguments that had been made in the colonies for the past decade. In one conciliatory act, Congress decided against including complaints about parliamentary acts before 1763 among its grievances.

The First Continental Congress's actions further exacerbated rather than ameliorated relations between Great Britain and its colonies. It endorsed the autonomy of colonial legislatures and a very limited legislative role for Parliament over the colonies. It firmly accepted the proposition that conciliation had to be initiated by Britain. Most importantly, Congress made future intercolonial cooperation and unified resistance possible.

The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from September 5 to October 26, 1774. It passed three important resolutions: endorsing the Suffolk Resolves (1774), approving an economic boycott against Britain, and adopting a petition to the king detailing the colonies' rights and grievances. As an extralegal body, Congress depended upon obtaining and maintaining the support of colonial assemblies and the public. Thus delegates placed a premium on cooperation and compromise among the colonies, which were crucial for its success. Congress set the tone for future resistance to British rule and for the practice of politics in America.

Massachusetts called this meeting to formulate a response to the Coercive Acts (1774) then being imposed upon the colony. Massachusetts's Whig leaders sought advice and direction from the other colonies about how far they should go in resisting the Massachusetts Government Act, the Boston Port Act, and the new royal governor, Thomas Gage. Of the original 13 colonies, only Georgia did not send a delegation to Philadelphia.

Among the 56 delegates were men destined to lead the revolution and the new nation. Cousins John Adams and Samuel Adams represented Massachusetts, and Roger Sherman served for Connecticut. Virginia sent Richard Henry Lee and George Washington. Future chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay represented New York, and John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania attended. Not all delegates favored radical solutions. Men like Galloway searched for a moderate resolution to the crisis. Radical delegates did not dominate the proceedings, but this Congress succeeded because delegates were able forge a consensus that would help sustain unity among the colonies.

In its first public act on September 17, Congress unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves. These resolutions declared the Coercive Acts unconstitutional and recommended economic sanctions against Great Britain as the best course of resistance. Thus Congress accepted resistance but strove to avoid direct confrontation with the British troops stationed in Massachusetts. It indicated its support for Massachusetts and issued a warning to Great Britain that other colonies supported Massachusetts's actions. In addition, Congress provided direction for Massachusetts's resistance. Yet, by only approving defensive measures and rejecting proposals for more forceful action, Congress cautioned Massachusetts that not every deed would meet with unanimous approval. For the time being, resistance would remain within guidelines proposed by the Suffolk Resolves. This first resolution established two important precedents: First, by accepting congressional direction, Massachusetts allowed Congress to assert similar authority over all colonies. Second, by seeking unanimity, delegates made consensus more important than radical resistance.

Congress's second accomplishment was to approve an economic boycott of Great Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies. On September 22, Congress unanimously passed a resolution requesting the suspension of imports from Great Britain until the sense of Congress was known. Just five days later, on September 27, delegates unanimously agreed to a resolution to stop importation of British and Irish goods after December 1. They further resolved to stop exports to Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies after September 10, 1775. Thus Congress endorsed the resumption of commercial resistance first tried during the Stamp Act (1765) crisis. No one seriously questioned this path except Galloway. For the most part, the key issue was more a question of the scope of the boycott than whether to impose one at all. For example, Virginia delegates had been instructed to approve a boycott, but not one beginning before August 1775, and South Carolina wanted its staple crops—rice and indigo—exempted. Finally, on October 20, Congress formed the Continental association to execute the "non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement." Congress instructed that new local committees of safety be elected to oversee implementation and enforcement. It sanctioned extralegal committees and sought to direct and regulate their activities while allowing for local initiative and flexibility to fit each community's needs.

Third, Congress debated and approved a declaration of rights and grievances. During these debates, delegates considered the colonies' position within the British Empire and the proper interpretation of the unwritten British constitution. Galloway, who would become a loyalist, proposed a new imperial constitution. His plan of union would have created an intercolonial legislature responsible for "regulating and administering all the general police and affairs of the colonies" and during war to grant "aid to the crown." While the British Parliament would still have the power to enact laws for the colonies, all laws would have to be approved by both Parliament and the intercolonial assembly. Galloway's plan represented the most conciliatory proposal considered by Congress. Delegates effectively rejected it on September 28 on a procedural motion. New York delegates James Duane and John Jay proved more effective advocates of a moderate approach to the crisis than Galloway. Duane and Jay had the support of moderates from the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

Eight of the 10 resolutions considered for the declaration of rights passed unanimously, but not without debate. The debate focused on whether the colonies should base their grievances upon the law of nature or the British constitution. Delegates favored the latter over the former justification. The other main issue was how much authority and power colonies should concede to Parliament. The delegates rejected the resolution that defiantly asserted that colonial assemblies had the exclusive power of legislation in cases of taxation and internal policy, subject only to approval by the Crown. More conciliatory and ambiguous language replaced it. Congress agreed that colonial assemblies should assent to bona fide acts of Parliament concerning the regulation of external commerce for the general good of the British Empire. Taxation for the purpose of raising revenue was only acceptable if the colonial assemblies consented. The declaration of rights broke no new ground and was consistent with the constitutional arguments that had been made in the colonies for the past decade. In one conciliatory act, Congress decided against including complaints about parliamentary acts before 1763 among its grievances.

The First Continental Congress's actions further exacerbated rather than ameliorated relations between Great Britain and its colonies. It endorsed the autonomy of colonial legislatures and a very limited legislative role for Parliament over the colonies. It firmly accepted the proposition that conciliation had to be initiated by Britain. Most importantly, Congress made future intercolonial cooperation and unified resistance possible.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-10 11:35:57编辑过]
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:58:00 | 显示全部楼层

4

Middle Passage

From:
                        Encyclopedia of American History: Three Worlds Meet, Beginnings to 1607, vol. 1.
                    

rintPage('1054','AmericanHistory')">
        

The term Middle Passage referred to the forced relocation of an African man, woman, or child from his or her native community to rintPage('AFENC480','AmericanHistory');">slavery in the Western Hemisphere.

The Middle Passage began when an individual was captured and sold as part of the slave trade. Although slavery had long existed in Africa (and in other parts of the world), before the mid-15th century an individual captured and sold into slavery normally traveled a limited distance; the farthest journeys, in all likelihood, took a slave from sub-Saharan Africa across the rintPage('EAHI325','AmericanHistory');">Sahara. However, the growth of the slave trade after the mid-15th century, first promoted by Portuguese slavers, extended the distance that a captive traveled. As a result, the passage from freedom to slavery in the Americas, which invariably involved a weeks-long journey in miserable conditions onboard ships crossing the Atlantic, took on a meaning unto itself. Conditions on the slaving vessels were notorious. Recent historical scholarship has revealed that perhaps 10 percent of the enslaved men and women rose up in protest despite the fact that the cost of such protests was often death.

Well after 1607, when some Europeans began to organize protests against the slave trade, stories were told of the deprivations caused by the Middle Passage in an attempt to awaken humanitarian sympathies in the great mass of Europeans who had long accepted the enslavement of Africans. Graphic illustrations of conditions on slave ships circulated in the United States well into the 19th century, an enduring legacy of the horrors of the Middle Passage.

The term Middle Passage referred to the forced relocation of an African man, woman, or child from his or her native community to rintPage('AFENC480','AmericanHistory');">slavery in the Western Hemisphere.

The Middle Passage began when an individual was captured and sold as part of the slave trade. Although slavery had long existed in Africa (and in other parts of the world), before the mid-15th century an individual captured and sold into slavery normally traveled a limited distance; the farthest journeys, in all likelihood, took a slave from sub-Saharan Africa across the rintPage('EAHI325','AmericanHistory');">Sahara. However, the growth of the slave trade after the mid-15th century, first promoted by Portuguese slavers, extended the distance that a captive traveled. As a result, the passage from freedom to slavery in the Americas, which invariably involved a weeks-long journey in miserable conditions onboard ships crossing the Atlantic, took on a meaning unto itself. Conditions on the slaving vessels were notorious. Recent historical scholarship has revealed that perhaps 10 percent of the enslaved men and women rose up in protest despite the fact that the cost of such protests was often death.

Well after 1607, when some Europeans began to organize protests against the slave trade, stories were told of the deprivations caused by the Middle Passage in an attempt to awaken humanitarian sympathies in the great mass of Europeans who had long accepted the enslavement of Africans. Graphic illustrations of conditions on slave ships circulated in the United States well into the 19th century, an enduring legacy of the horrors of the Middle Passage.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-10 11:38:50编辑过]
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:58:00 | 显示全部楼层

5

French and Indian War

Also known as: Seven Years' War  
Date: 1754–1763 
From:
                        Encyclopedia of American History: Colonization and Settlement, 1608 to 1760, vol. 2.
                    

The French and Indian War ensured the dominance of English-speaking peoples over North America and set the stage for the American rintPage('EAHIII316','AmericanHistory');">Revolutionary War (1775–83). At the end of the war France lost all of her lands in present-day Canada to Britain. With the French threat in North America eliminated, Britain and its colonies could wrangle over the nature of the imperial relationship. In addition, many of the men who would later lead the Americans in their struggle against the British, rintPage('EAHIII381','AmericanHistory');">George Washington, rintPage('EAHIII330','AmericanHistory');">Philip Schuyler, and rintPage('EAHIII142','AmericanHistory');">Benjamin Franklin among them, rose to prominence during that conflict.

This war is known by a variety of names, reflecting three increasingly large dimensions of the conflict. As the French and Indian War, it began in 1754 in what is now western Pennsylvania. A rintPage('EAHII417','AmericanHistory');">Virginia force of some 400 troops under 22-year-old colonel George Washington was defeated and sent home by a French expedition about double its size. Both had arrived to secure the Ohio Valley, but instead of simply considering this one of many border incidents that had troubled colonial relations since the 17th century, the British government, alarmed that the French had constructed a chain of rintPage('EAHII149','AmericanHistory');">forts from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico since the end of rintPage('EAHII213','AmericanHistory');">King George's War in 1748, decided for the first time to begin a major war over a colonial dispute. In Europe the conflict is known as the Seven Years' War, because more general fighting broke out in 1756 that pitted Britain and Prussia against Russia (until 1762), France, Austria, and (beginning in 1762) Spain. Historian Lawrence Henry Gipson dubbed the conflict "The Great War for Empire" to call attention to the fact that the skirmish fought by Washington mushroomed into a world war fought on every inhabited continent then known, including Asia, Africa, and South America as well as Europe and North America.

The war's first major combat occurred in western Pennsylvania. In 1755 an expedition of more than 2,000 Virginians and British regulars commanded by General rintPage('EAHII040','AmericanHistory');">Edward Braddock was ambushed and annihilated, with a loss of more than 800 of his men and only 39 of the French and Indians, just before it reached its intended goal of Fort Duquesne (present-day Pittsburgh). rintPage('EAHII309','AmericanHistory');">Pennsylvania, still ruled by the pacifist rintPage('EAHII340','AmericanHistory');">Quaker faction, had only grudgingly supplied food and wagons to Braddock. Native Americans in western Pennsylvania had been forced off of their lands in the eastern part of the state during the previous 25 years through treaties the colony had negotiated with the Iroquois, whom the colony recognized as sovereign in the area. Consequently, following Braddock's defeat, the Indians launched a ferocious series of attacks that forced the line of European settlement eastward about 100 miles, behind the Susequehanna River. Raiding parties reached the environs of Reading and Bethlehem and came within 30 miles of the port city of Philadelphia.

The British experienced minor victories and major setbacks for two years as they implemented an ambitious plan designed to drive the French from North America once and for all. The British planned to proceed along three fronts toward the center of French power at Quebec: from the west via Forts Duquesne, Niagara, and Oswego; from Louisbourg, the French fort at Cape Breton Island and down the St. Lawrence River from the east; and, after capturing the French Fort Carillon (Ticonderoga), through New York and up Lakes George and Champlain. However, until 1758, when a large expedition headed by the dying general John Forbes compelled the French to evacuate Fort Duquesne and when Jeffrey Amherst succeeded in conquering Louisbourg, the British enjoyed only minor successes while suffering major disasters. Only the 1755 conquest of Acadia in Nova Scotia—which led to the "ethnic cleansing" of the French Acadians ("Cajuns") and their dispersal as far away as Louisiana—and the conquest of Kittaning, the main base for Native American attacks in western Pennsylvania, provided relief.

When Sir William Pitt became prime minister in 1757, he realized British forces and resources would be spread thinly throughout the European continent and North America. Thus, he encouraged the raising of royal colonial regiments and funded the various colonies' war efforts to the tune of more than 1 million pounds sterling, perhaps a third of all Britain's expenses. However, the close association of British professional soldiers with colonial volunteers and civilians bred hostility on both sides. The British insisted on subordinating all colonial officers to Europeans, attempted to quarter troops in colonial cities to popular dismay, and, in general, relegated colonial soldiers, whom they treated contemptuously, to garrison duty and support work such as digging trenches. In turn, the colonists considered the British officers impossibly arrogant and their common soldiers badly behaved. The colonists insisted on choosing and following only their own officers and returning home each year to tend their farms and shops. Massachusetts, which provided the most soldiers—up to 8,000 per year—also was the most rambunctious; its troops mutinied 11 times. Other points of contention included American merchants trading with the enemy (the French West Indies sugar islands offered high prices for American foodstuffs) and the impressment of American mariners into the British navy.

The success of James Wolfe in conquering Quebec in 1759 temporarily eclipsed past misunderstandings. Considered reckless, if not insane, by fellow British officers, Wolfe ascended the St. Lawrence with a force of 4,500 men, who seemed to be helplessly stuck before the high cliffs guarding Quebec. Suffering from disease and fearing the onset of winter, which would trap their ships in the river's ice, Wolfe and his soldiers, in a last-ditch effort, climbed the cliffs and presented themselves on September 12 before the city walls on the Plains of Abraham. Instead of waiting for a relief force that was nearby, the French commander, Marquis de Montcalm, led his approximately equal force out of the city and onto the battlefield. Most of it consisted of poorly disciplined Canadian militia and Indians, no match in the open field for the British, but Montcalm, who had only contempt for Indians and nonprofessional soldiers, feared his troops would desert unless he fought immediately.

Although victory at Quebec appeared to have secured the British triumph, important operations remained. Amherst conquered Montreal the following year, and Colonel Henry Bouquet, who with Amherst's knowledge distributed smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans in a primitive version of germ warfare, temporarily pacified the Ohio Valley. The Treaty of Paris (1763), which ended the war, gave Canada and most of the territory in North America east of the Mississippi River (except for New Orleans and a vaguely defined West Florida) to the British. Defying the royal Proclamation of 1763, British colonists poured into the west. Bouquet and the British army were again required, this time to defeat what has been called Pontiac's Rebellion (1763–5). It was actually a great intersocietal rebellion of Native Americans who increasingly were acquiring a common identity, even as white people were defining them collectively as racially inferior, suitable only for extermination or removal.

The futile British effort to curtail westward settlement was only one of many policies that made the Seven Years' War the necessary, if not sufficient, prelude to the American Revolution. Efforts to eliminate illegal trade with the West Indies, from which major American merchants such as John Hancock prospered, stemmed from British anger at colonial trading with the enemy during war and the avoidance of taxes through smuggling. The Stamp Act of 1765 was designed in part so Americans might at least pay the ongoing expenses of the garrisons that Britain was planning for the frontier to prevent future Indian wars.

Perhaps most important, the war ended with two proud and confident victors who had vastly different conceptions of the British Empire. Convinced that European Britons alone had won the war, the mother country put forth the novel theory that Parliament was sovereign and all colonial legislatures merely subordinate bodies. Pointing to their own substantial efforts during the war, the colonies rejoiced in an empire whose prime virtue was to protect the right to self-government that they had traditionally enjoyed, subject to a vague and loosely enforced British authority. As Britain rejoiced in becoming the world's greatest power, Americans looked forward to a destiny in which their population would continue to grow by leaps and bounds, and they would expand, as a people chosen by their Protestant God, throughout the continent. However, another world war, which developed out of the American Revolution, was required to decide which vision would prevail.

The French and Indian War ensured the dominance of English-speaking peoples over North America and set the stage for the American Revolutionary War (1775–83). At the end of the war France lost all of her lands in present-day Canada to Britain. With the French threat in North America eliminated, Britain and its colonies could wrangle over the nature of the imperial relationship. In addition, many of the men who would later lead the Americans in their struggle against the British, George Washington, Philip Schuyler, and Benjamin Franklin among them, rose to prominence during that conflict.

This war is known by a variety of names, reflecting three increasingly large dimensions of the conflict. As the French and Indian War, it began in 1754 in what is now western Pennsylvania. A Virginia force of some 400 troops under 22-year-old colonel George Washington was defeated and sent home by a French expedition about double its size. Both had arrived to secure the Ohio Valley, but instead of simply considering this one of many border incidents that had troubled colonial relations since the 17th century, the British government, alarmed that the French had constructed a chain of forts from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico since the end of King George's War in 1748, decided for the first time to begin a major war over a colonial dispute. In Europe the conflict is known as the Seven Years' War, because more general fighting broke out in 1756 that pitted Britain and Prussia against Russia (until 1762), France, Austria, and (beginning in 1762) Spain. Historian Lawrence Henry Gipson dubbed the conflict "The Great War for Empire" to call attention to the fact that the skirmish fought by Washington mushroomed into a world war fought on every inhabited continent then known, including Asia, Africa, and South America as well as Europe and North America.

The war's first major combat occurred in western Pennsylvania. In 1755 an expedition of more than 2,000 Virginians and British regulars commanded by General Edward Braddock was ambushed and annihilated, with a loss of more than 800 of his men and only 39 of the French and Indians, just before it reached its intended goal of Fort Duquesne (present-day Pittsburgh). Pennsylvania, still ruled by the pacifist Quaker faction, had only grudgingly supplied food and wagons to Braddock. Native Americans in western Pennsylvania had been forced off of their lands in the eastern part of the state during the previous 25 years through treaties the colony had negotiated with the Iroquois, whom the colony recognized as sovereign in the area. Consequently, following Braddock's defeat, the Indians launched a ferocious series of attacks that forced the line of European settlement eastward about 100 miles, behind the Susequehanna River. Raiding parties reached the environs of Reading and Bethlehem and came within 30 miles of the port city of Philadelphia.

The British experienced minor victories and major setbacks for two years as they implemented an ambitious plan designed to drive the French from North America once and for all. The British planned to proceed along three fronts toward the center of French power at Quebec: from the west via Forts Duquesne, Niagara, and Oswego; from Louisbourg, the French fort at Cape Breton Island and down the St. Lawrence River from the east; and, after capturing the French Fort Carillon (Ticonderoga), through New York and up Lakes George and Champlain. However, until 1758, when a large expedition headed by the dying general John Forbes compelled the French to evacuate Fort Duquesne and when Jeffrey Amherst succeeded in conquering Louisbourg, the British enjoyed only minor successes while suffering major disasters. Only the 1755 conquest of Acadia in Nova Scotia—which led to the "ethnic cleansing" of the French Acadians ("Cajuns") and their dispersal as far away as Louisiana—and the conquest of Kittaning, the main base for Native American attacks in western Pennsylvania, provided relief.

When Sir William Pitt became prime minister in 1757, he realized British forces and resources would be spread thinly throughout the European continent and North America. Thus, he encouraged the raising of royal colonial regiments and funded the various colonies' war efforts to the tune of more than 1 million pounds sterling, perhaps a third of all Britain's expenses. However, the close association of British professional soldiers with colonial volunteers and civilians bred hostility on both sides. The British insisted on subordinating all colonial officers to Europeans, attempted to quarter troops in colonial cities to popular dismay, and, in general, relegated colonial soldiers, whom they treated contemptuously, to garrison duty and support work such as digging trenches. In turn, the colonists considered the British officers impossibly arrogant and their common soldiers badly behaved. The colonists insisted on choosing and following only their own officers and returning home each year to tend their farms and shops. Massachusetts, which provided the most soldiers—up to 8,000 per year—also was the most rambunctious; its troops mutinied 11 times. Other points of contention included American merchants trading with the enemy (the French West Indies sugar islands offered high prices for American foodstuffs) and the impressment of American mariners into the British navy.

The success of James Wolfe in conquering Quebec in 1759 temporarily eclipsed past misunderstandings. Considered reckless, if not insane, by fellow British officers, Wolfe ascended the St. Lawrence with a force of 4,500 men, who seemed to be helplessly stuck before the high cliffs guarding Quebec. Suffering from disease and fearing the onset of winter, which would trap their ships in the river's ice, Wolfe and his soldiers, in a last-ditch effort, climbed the cliffs and presented themselves on September 12 before the city walls on the Plains of Abraham. Instead of waiting for a relief force that was nearby, the French commander, Marquis de Montcalm, led his approximately equal force out of the city and onto the battlefield. Most of it consisted of poorly disciplined Canadian militia and Indians, no match in the open field for the British, but Montcalm, who had only contempt for Indians and nonprofessional soldiers, feared his troops would desert unless he fought immediately.

Although victory at Quebec appeared to have secured the British triumph, important operations remained. Amherst conquered Montreal the following year, and Colonel Henry Bouquet, who with Amherst's knowledge distributed smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans in a primitive version of germ warfare, temporarily pacified the Ohio Valley. The Treaty of Paris (1763), which ended the war, gave Canada and most of the territory in North America east of the Mississippi River (except for New Orleans and a vaguely defined West Florida) to the British. Defying the royal Proclamation of 1763, British colonists poured into the west. Bouquet and the British army were again required, this time to defeat what has been called Pontiac's Rebellion (1763–5). It was actually a great intersocietal rebellion of Native Americans who increasingly were acquiring a common identity, even as white people were defining them collectively as racially inferior, suitable only for extermination or removal.

The futile British effort to curtail westward settlement was only one of many policies that made the Seven Years' War the necessary, if not sufficient, prelude to the American Revolution. Efforts to eliminate illegal trade with the West Indies, from which major American merchants such as John Hancock prospered, stemmed from British anger at colonial trading with the enemy during war and the avoidance of taxes through smuggling. The Stamp Act of 1765 was designed in part so Americans might at least pay the ongoing expenses of the garrisons that Britain was planning for the frontier to prevent future Indian wars.

Perhaps most important, the war ended with two proud and confident victors who had vastly different conceptions of the British Empire. Convinced that European Britons alone had won the war, the mother country put forth the novel theory that Parliament was sovereign and all colonial legislatures merely subordinate bodies. Pointing to their own substantial efforts during the war, the colonies rejoiced in an empire whose prime virtue was to protect the right to self-government that they had traditionally enjoyed, subject to a vague and loosely enforced British authority. As Britain rejoiced in becoming the world's greatest power, Americans looked forward to a destiny in which their population would continue to grow by leaps and bounds, and they would expand, as a people chosen by their Protestant God, throughout the continent. However, another world war, which developed out of the American Revolution, was required to decide which vision would prevail.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-11 20:39:11编辑过]
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:58:00 | 显示全部楼层

6

Pilgrims

From:
                        Encyclopedia of American History: Colonization and Settlement, 1608 to 1760, vol. 2.
                    

rintPage('AHI1087','AmericanHistory')">
        

A group of 41 rintPage('EAHII339','AmericanHistory');">Puritan Separatist rintPage('EAHII087','AmericanHistory');">Congregationalists, known as Pilgrims, were the backbone of the 102 English colonists who sailed to North America on the Mayflower in 1620 and established the rintPage('EAHII319','AmericanHistory');">Plymouth Colony in New England. Puritans felt the Elizabethan church settlement failed adequately to purge the rintPage('EAHII018','AmericanHistory');">Anglican church of its traditional rintPage('EAHII354','AmericanHistory');">Catholic organization and ceremonies. Instead of venerating pomp and ceremony, the Puritans embraced a fanatical piety embedded in the damnation of original sin, predestination, and salvation by faith. In the late 1500s the Puritans split into two groups, Non-Separatists and Separatists. Non-Separatists wanted to work within the Anglican Church for reform. Separatists, like the Pilgrims, adopted a more zealous doctrine, preaching that the established church was incapable of reformation. They consequently severed their local congregation, located in Scrooby, Nottinghamshire, from the Anglican Church.

The Pilgrims embraced Congregationalism, the idea that congregational independence, decentralized authority, and democratic control by elected leadership offered the best chance for salvation. The Pilgrims' idea of democracy included only male church elders. On a broader social scale the revolt of Puritan factions against the established church also reflected the 17th-century struggle of an emerging middle class against absolute authority and privilege.

The Anglican Church persecuted Separatist congregations. The Ecclesiastical Commission of York imprisoned Scrooby separatists and fined others. William Brewster, rintPage('APL036','AmericanHistory');">William Bradford, and John Robinson organized an unsuccessful attempt by the Scrooby congregation to leave England in 1607. Local authorities charged and jailed the Separatists for attempting an illegal exit from the country. By 1608 most of the Scrooby congregation arrived in Amsterdam, finally settling in Leiden in 1609.

The Pilgrims never completely adapted to the idea of becoming Dutch instead of remaining English. In 1617 they decided to end their voluntary exile and move to North America. In 1619 the Pilgrims' representatives, Deacon John Carver and Robert Cushman, obtained financial support from Thomas Weston and his group of adventurers. The Pilgrims agreed to form a joint-stock company with Weston's merchant investors. Their seven-year contract required the Pilgrims to establish a trading post in North America and made all property and profit the communal property of the company. The majority of the Leiden congregation rejected this proposal, and only a minority sailed to England to make final arrangements for the voyage to the New World.

After a 66-day voyage across the Atlantic, the Mayflower arrived off Cape Cod on November 11, 1620. The Pilgrims realized they were outside the domain of the original charter. To preserve order and establish control over any non-Congregationalist English "strangers" who might start their own settlement, they persuaded all 41 adult men on board to sign the rintPage('EAHII253','AmericanHistory');">Mayflower Compact and agree to accept a democratically elected communal government. The Mayflower anchored in Plymouth Bay on December 16, 1620.

Plymouth Colony differed markedly from rintPage('EAHII198','AmericanHistory');">Jamestown. Unlike Jamestown's male-dominated company of profit seekers, the Mayflower carried families. Of the 41 Pilgrims on board, there were 17 men, 10 women, and 14 children. The site chosen for Plymouth Colony was the abandoned village of the Patuxet that a plague had decimated in 1617. After an initial brutal winter that killed 44 settlers, the spring of 1621 brought contact with the local natives. rintPage('ind0866','AmericanHistory');">Samoset, the first Indian to come to Plymouth Colony, spoke English he had learned from fishermen. He arranged the visit of Massasoit, chief of the neighboring Wampanoag, who befriended the settlement. Plymouth Colony also found a friend in Tisquantum, or Squanto, the sole survivor of the Patuxet tribe. Squanto showed the colonists how, when, and what to plant in the old Patuxet fields near Plymouth. The Pilgrims also learned where to fish and hunt. In the fall of 1621 the settlement felt established enough to observe the first Thanksgiving day to offer thanks for their survival after the first winter's hardships. The colony became official in November 1621, when the Fortune brought 36 new settlers and a charter for Plymouth Plantation from the Council for New England.

A group of 41 Puritan Separatist Congregationalists, known as Pilgrims, were the backbone of the 102 English colonists who sailed to North America on the Mayflower in 1620 and established the Plymouth Colony in New England. Puritans felt the Elizabethan church settlement failed adequately to purge the Anglican church of its traditional Catholic organization and ceremonies. Instead of venerating pomp and ceremony, the Puritans embraced a fanatical piety embedded in the damnation of original sin, predestination, and salvation by faith. In the late 1500s the Puritans split into two groups, Non-Separatists and Separatists. Non-Separatists wanted to work within the Anglican Church for reform. Separatists, like the Pilgrims, adopted a more zealous doctrine, preaching that the established church was incapable of reformation. They consequently severed their local congregation, located in Scrooby, Nottinghamshire, from the Anglican Church.

The Pilgrims embraced Congregationalism, the idea that congregational independence, decentralized authority, and democratic control by elected leadership offered the best chance for salvation. The Pilgrims' idea of democracy included only male church elders. On a broader social scale the revolt of Puritan factions against the established church also reflected the 17th-century struggle of an emerging middle class against absolute authority and privilege.

The Anglican Church persecuted Separatist congregations. The Ecclesiastical Commission of York imprisoned Scrooby separatists and fined others. William Brewster, William Bradford, and John Robinson organized an unsuccessful attempt by the Scrooby congregation to leave England in 1607. Local authorities charged and jailed the Separatists for attempting an illegal exit from the country. By 1608 most of the Scrooby congregation arrived in Amsterdam, finally settling in Leiden in 1609.

The Pilgrims never completely adapted to the idea of becoming Dutch instead of remaining English. In 1617 they decided to end their voluntary exile and move to North America. In 1619 the Pilgrims' representatives, Deacon John Carver and Robert Cushman, obtained financial support from Thomas Weston and his group of adventurers. The Pilgrims agreed to form a joint-stock company with Weston's merchant investors. Their seven-year contract required the Pilgrims to establish a trading post in North America and made all property and profit the communal property of the company. The majority of the Leiden congregation rejected this proposal, and only a minority sailed to England to make final arrangements for the voyage to the New World.

After a 66-day voyage across the Atlantic, the Mayflower arrived off Cape Cod on November 11, 1620. The Pilgrims realized they were outside the domain of the original charter. To preserve order and establish control over any non-Congregationalist English "strangers" who might start their own settlement, they persuaded all 41 adult men on board to sign the Mayflower Compact and agree to accept a democratically elected communal government. The Mayflower anchored in Plymouth Bay on December 16, 1620.

Plymouth Colony differed markedly from Jamestown. Unlike Jamestown's male-dominated company of profit seekers, the Mayflower carried families. Of the 41 Pilgrims on board, there were 17 men, 10 women, and 14 children. The site chosen for Plymouth Colony was the abandoned village of the Patuxet that a plague had decimated in 1617. After an initial brutal winter that killed 44 settlers, the spring of 1621 brought contact with the local natives. Samoset, the first Indian to come to Plymouth Colony, spoke English he had learned from fishermen. He arranged the visit of Massasoit, chief of the neighboring Wampanoag, who befriended the settlement. Plymouth Colony also found a friend in Tisquantum, or Squanto, the sole survivor of the Patuxet tribe. Squanto showed the colonists how, when, and what to plant in the old Patuxet fields near Plymouth. The Pilgrims also learned where to fish and hunt. In the fall of 1621 the settlement felt established enough to observe the first Thanksgiving day to offer thanks for their survival after the first winter's hardships. The colony became official in November 1621, when the Fortune brought 36 new settlers and a charter for Plymouth Plantation from the Council for New England.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-11 20:45:42编辑过]
7#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:59:00 | 显示全部楼层

7

fur trade

From:
                        Encyclopedia of Exploration, vol. 2.
                    

The fur trade, the commerce in animal skins and pelts, has played a significant part in world exploration and development. Trade in furs has taken place since ancient times in all hemispheres and among various peoples. Yet it is most directly tied in with the history of exploration in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in northern parts of North America and in Siberia in eastern Asia. Europeans of all the colonial powers, especially in the 16th through 18th centuries—the French, Dutch, English, Russians, and, to a lesser extent, the Spanish—bartered trade goods, such as iron tools and utensils, cloth, glass beads, firearms, and alcoholic beverages, with indigenous peoples in order to fulfill a demand for furs in Europe, especially beaver pelts for felt for the making of hats with brims, a fashion style that first caught on in the 1580s. But the pelts of other animals, such as muskrat, mink, marten, fox, sea otter, and seal, were also sought. After the founding of the United States, Euro-Americans continued working the fur trade. Some became hunters and trappers themselves. And some native peoples acted as middlemen between other tribes and the European or Euro-American traders. The fur trade involved the capture of fur-bearing animals through hunting and trapping, skinning them, then transporting the skins for processing into fur clothing and felt.

French Trade

In early colonial times, the French most thoroughly exploited the fur trade. Whereas mining and the raising of livestock had a greater economic bearing on the development of Spanish colonies, and farming dominated the economy and land use of the English colonies, commerce in furs determined French expansion. The French and Indian fur trade began with rintPage('EAHI068','AmericanHistory');">Jacques Cartier in 1534 along the St. Lawrence River. His original intent had been to find a rintPage('EAHI277','AmericanHistory');">Northwest Passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and gain maritime access to the Orient, but he found instead an untapped source of furs among Native Americans, who were eager to trade for European goods. rintPage('EAHII070','AmericanHistory');">Samuel de Champlain began colonizing New France in 1604, with trade with Native Americans central to the colony's economy. Over the next years, Champlain explored the northern woods and established trade agreements with various tribes to deliver their pelts to French trading posts. Port Royal in rintPage('EAHI004','AmericanHistory');">Acadia (now Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia), Quebec City, and Montreal all became thriving centers of commerce.

Eastern rintPage('ind2311','AmericanHistory');">Algonquian-speaking tribes, such as the Cree, rintPage('ind2310','AmericanHistory');">Algonkin, rintPage('ind2389','AmericanHistory');">Montagnais, rintPage('ind2393','AmericanHistory');">Naskapi, rintPage('ind2306','AmericanHistory');">Abenaki, and rintPage('ind2381','AmericanHistory');">Micmac, were all involved in the French fur trade. Yet the Iroquoian-speaking Huron (Wyandot) became the foremost suppliers. From the years 1616 to 1649, the Huron, in conjunction with the Algonquian Ottawa and Nipissing, developed a trading empire among Native Americans from the Great Lakes to the Hudson Bay to the St. Lawrence. Each of the three main trading partners had its own river and portage route for travel by canoe, plus a yearly schedule, linking them up with each other and other tribes as well. Acting as middlemen, the Huron traded agricultural products to other tribes for pelts, which they then carried to the French in Quebec city or Montreal, to trade for European wares. In their flotillas of canoes, now laden with goods, they then completed the trade circle, returning to other peoples to exchange some of the European trade goods for still more furs.

This complex trade relationship lasted until the mid-17th century, ending with the military and economic expansion from the south by the five Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) nations—Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca—who at the time were trading partners of the Dutch working out of Fort Orange (present-day Albany) in New Netherland. The Dutch also carried out some trade for furs with the Algonquian-speaking Lenni Lenape (Delaware) and Wappinger Indians out of New Amsterdam in present-day New York City. In the meantime, many Frenchmen, some of them sponsored by de Champlain and others by the Catholic Church, were venturing along lakes and rivers into the wilderness in search of new sources for furs. Many more would follow. The men who earned a livelihood by paddling large canoes into the wilderness in quest of furs for licensed traders came to be known as voyageurs; the independent, unlicensed entrepreneurs who defied regulations, many of them living among the native population, became known as coureurs de bois. Both voyageurs and coureurs de bois would propagate a group of people associated for years with the fur trade—the Métis—mixed-bloods of predominantly French and native descent, or of Scottish and native descent, especially Cree, Chippewa, and Assiniboine.

The fur market varied in profitability, one crash occurring in 1696. Yet the French fur trade expanded into new regions. Under royal management, New France extended its territory from the Great Lakes across the Mississippi River into the Louisiana Territory. Pierre-Antoine Mallet and his brother Paul as well as Pierre Gaultier de Varennes de La Vérendrye helped open the trans-Mississippi region in the first half of the 18th century. French traders also expanded their markets in the south, from settlements along the Gulf Coast northwestward along the Mississippi and Red Rivers—parts of present-day Louisiana and Texas. New Orleans, founded in 1718, became a bustling center of commerce. And during the 18th century, the French established a special trade relationship with the Taovaya in the Southwest, the French name for both Wichita and Caddo Indians, who acted as middlemen for them as the Huron had done for the French the century before.

British Trade

England, after the takeover of New Netherland from the Dutch in 1664, inherited a trade relationship with the Iroquois. They also developed trade relations with tribes in the fur-rich untapped Hudson Bay region. Claim to the area was based on the voyage of Henry Hudson in 1610. The fur-trading expedition of Médard Chouart des Groseilliers and his brother-in-law Pierre-Esprit Radisson to the region in 1668–69 led to the founding of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1670. The English, rather than sending traders inland to collect furs as the French did, established trading posts for barter with the Indians—especially the Cree and Chipewayan—at the mouths of the large rivers that drained into the bay. Ships could come and go in the summertime when the northern waters were free of ice. At this time, England did not know the extent of Rupert's Land, as its northern holdings were called, after Prince Rupert, the Hudson's Bay Company's chief backer and first governor. The French also claimed the Hudson Bay region and sent out various military expeditions against British posts, with some successes, and continued to play a dominant role in the fur trade until England's ultimate victory in the French and Indian Wars and the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

Starting in the 1780s, the Hudson's Bay Company also encountered fierce competition from the North West Company, founded by Scottish interests in Montreal. The rivalry spurred a period of extensive exploration in which new Indian contacts were established, especially among the tribes of the Canadian West. A "Nor'wester," Sir Alexander Mackenzie, became the first non-Indian to cross the North American continent north of Mexico in the early 1790s. David Thompson, who worked for both companies at different times in his career, mapped much of the Canadian West in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The two companies merged in 1821 under the name of the older company, and the Hudson's Bay Company thrived in the fur trade for years to come.

Russian Trade

During the period of conflict between France and Great Britain, Russia also began developing its fur trade. Russia had been a world source of furs for centuries, especially luxury furs. With fur-bearing animals depleted in western parts, the promyshlenniki—Russian fur traders and hunters—pushed eastward into Siberia. Early traders, such as Yerofey Pavlovich Khabarov, who explored the Amur River in southeastern Siberia in the mid-17th century, conducted some trade in the region. In the mid-18th century, Emelyan Basov, one of the Cossacks who explored eastern Russia, developed the fur trade as far as the Kamchatka Peninsula.

In the years after Danish Vitus Jonassen Bering's and Russian Aleksey Ilyich Chirikov's voyage of exploration to Alaska on behalf of Russia in 1741, the promyshlenniki extended operations to North America, reaching the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan mainland, where the sea otter was plentiful. In the early years, the traders formed ad hoc companies, with no rules governing their operations or their exploitative treatment of the Aleut, the native peoples on the Aleutian Islands, and the Inuit (Eskimo), on the mainland. The typical early Russian method of acquiring furs was to enter a native village, take hostages either by means of violence or with the threat of violence, pass out traps to the men, then demand furs in exchange for the lives of the women and children. If the men failed to deliver furs, hostages would be executed. Then, when the furs were collected, the Russians would depart until the next season.

By the 1780s, British and American traders also worked the Pacific coast, especially in Nootka Sound in present-day British Columbia. But they also extended their activity to Alaska in the north and in California in the south. Ships would sail from Boston around South America to fur country, then transport the sea otter skins to China, where there was a great demand.

To protect their territorial claims and economic interest, the Russians, under the impetus of Grigory Ivanovich Shelikov, and his employer, Ivana L. Golikiv, who had set up a base at Okhotsk in Siberia, began establishing permanent colonies, the first at Three Saints on Kodiak Island in 1784. Because of Shelikov's efforts and those of Aleksandr Andreevich Baranov, in his employ, in 1799, the Russian-American Company was chartered, with a monopoly in all Russian territory in North America. By 1812, that territory extended to northern California, where Fort Ross was founded near Bodega Bay.

American Trade

During colonial times, U.S. interests participated only minimally in the fur trade. The deerskin trade flourished in the Southeast, however. In 1808, John Jacob Astor founded the American Fur Company, having various subsidiaries to follow, such as the Pacific Fur Company, with a trading post at Astoria, Oregon, and the South West Company, operating near the Great Lakes. The next year, a group in St. Louis on the Mississippi River founded the St. Louis Missouri Fur Company. Among the partners were Jean Pierre Chouteau, his son Auguste Pierre Chouteau, Manuel Lisa, William Clark, Antoine Pierre Menard, and Andrew Henry.

Both enterprises sponsored numerous expeditions into the western wilderness. In 1816, the American Congress enacted a law excluding British traders from the United States. Another American entrepreneur, William Henry Ashley, became a powerful force in the fur trade with his Rocky Mountain Fur Company, founded by him and Andrew Henry in 1822. Many of the men who worked for and traded with him came to be known as the mountain men. Among the most famous of them were Thomas Fitzpatrick, Jedediah Strong Smith, and William Lewis Sublette. In the 1820s–1830s, they traveled the Native American trails and passes of the West as hunters, trappers, and traders, and like the voyageurs and the coureurs de bois of French Canada, they learned wilderness survival skills from Native Americans.

During these same years, the U.S. government also played a part in the fur trade, through a system of federal trading houses, called the "factory system." From 1790 to 1799, the U.S. Congress passed four Trade and Intercourse Acts pertaining to Indian affairs and commerce. Among other regulations, the acts provided for the appointment of Indian agents and licensing of federal traders, who could barter with the Indians for furs. In 1802, a follow-up Trade and Intercourse Act codified the four earlier ones. And, in 1806, an Office of Indian Trade was created within the War Department to administer the federal trading houses. The "factory system" was abolished in 1822, at which time provisions were made for the licensing of independent traders, who were better able to operate in the wilderness.

The international fur market experienced a decline starting in the late 1830s, partly because the beaver hat went out of style in favor of the silk hat. Other factors contributed to the end of the centuries-long fur boom: the depletion of fur-bearing animals and the advance of farming settlements. As for the mountain men and other counterparts, many of them stayed active in the American West long after the fur decline, as soldiers, scouts, and guides. In 1867, Russia gave up its North American venture and sold Alaska to the United States, and in 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company sold off its vast territorial holdings to the Canadian government. Yet the fur trade had made its mark in the history of exploration; the traders had pioneered routes, mapped vast regions, and opened up vast areas to non-Indian settlement and other types of commercial development. Nowadays, the fur trade is still carried out in the far north, mostly by indigenous peoples.

The fur trade, the commerce in animal skins and pelts, has played a significant part in world exploration and development. Trade in furs has taken place since ancient times in all hemispheres and among various peoples. Yet it is most directly tied in with the history of exploration in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in northern parts of North America and in Siberia in eastern Asia. Europeans of all the colonial powers, especially in the 16th through 18th centuries—the French, Dutch, English, Russians, and, to a lesser extent, the Spanish—bartered trade goods, such as iron tools and utensils, cloth, glass beads, firearms, and alcoholic beverages, with indigenous peoples in order to fulfill a demand for furs in Europe, especially beaver pelts for felt for the making of hats with brims, a fashion style that first caught on in the 1580s. But the pelts of other animals, such as muskrat, mink, marten, fox, sea otter, and seal, were also sought. After the founding of the United States, Euro-Americans continued working the fur trade. Some became hunters and trappers themselves. And some native peoples acted as middlemen between other tribes and the European or Euro-American traders. The fur trade involved the capture of fur-bearing animals through hunting and trapping, skinning them, then transporting the skins for processing into fur clothing and felt.

French Trade

In early colonial times, the French most thoroughly exploited the fur trade. Whereas mining and the raising of livestock had a greater economic bearing on the development of Spanish colonies, and farming dominated the economy and land use of the English colonies, commerce in furs determined French expansion. The French and Indian fur trade began with Jacques Cartier in 1534 along the St. Lawrence River. His original intent had been to find a Northwest Passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and gain maritime access to the Orient, but he found instead an untapped source of furs among Native Americans, who were eager to trade for European goods. Samuel de Champlain began colonizing New France in 1604, with trade with Native Americans central to the colony's economy. Over the next years, Champlain explored the northern woods and established trade agreements with various tribes to deliver their pelts to French trading posts. Port Royal in Acadia (now Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia), Quebec City, and Montreal all became thriving centers of commerce.

Eastern Algonquian-speaking tribes, such as the Cree, Algonkin, Montagnais, Naskapi, Abenaki, and Micmac, were all involved in the French fur trade. Yet the Iroquoian-speaking Huron (Wyandot) became the foremost suppliers. From the years 1616 to 1649, the Huron, in conjunction with the Algonquian Ottawa and Nipissing, developed a trading empire among Native Americans from the Great Lakes to the Hudson Bay to the St. Lawrence. Each of the three main trading partners had its own river and portage route for travel by canoe, plus a yearly schedule, linking them up with each other and other tribes as well. Acting as middlemen, the Huron traded agricultural products to other tribes for pelts, which they then carried to the French in Quebec city or Montreal, to trade for European wares. In their flotillas of canoes, now laden with goods, they then completed the trade circle, returning to other peoples to exchange some of the European trade goods for still more furs.

This complex trade relationship lasted until the mid-17th century, ending with the military and economic expansion from the south by the five Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) nations—Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca—who at the time were trading partners of the Dutch working out of Fort Orange (present-day Albany) in New Netherland. The Dutch also carried out some trade for furs with the Algonquian-speaking Lenni Lenape (Delaware) and Wappinger Indians out of New Amsterdam in present-day New York City. In the meantime, many Frenchmen, some of them sponsored by de Champlain and others by the Catholic Church, were venturing along lakes and rivers into the wilderness in search of new sources for furs. Many more would follow. The men who earned a livelihood by paddling large canoes into the wilderness in quest of furs for licensed traders came to be known as voyageurs; the independent, unlicensed entrepreneurs who defied regulations, many of them living among the native population, became known as coureurs de bois. Both voyageurs and coureurs de bois would propagate a group of people associated for years with the fur trade—the Métis—mixed-bloods of predominantly French and native descent, or of Scottish and native descent, especially Cree, Chippewa, and Assiniboine.

The fur market varied in profitability, one crash occurring in 1696. Yet the French fur trade expanded into new regions. Under royal management, New France extended its territory from the Great Lakes across the Mississippi River into the Louisiana Territory. Pierre-Antoine Mallet and his brother Paul as well as Pierre Gaultier de Varennes de La Vérendrye helped open the trans-Mississippi region in the first half of the 18th century. French traders also expanded their markets in the south, from settlements along the Gulf Coast northwestward along the Mississippi and Red Rivers—parts of present-day Louisiana and Texas. New Orleans, founded in 1718, became a bustling center of commerce. And during the 18th century, the French established a special trade relationship with the Taovaya in the Southwest, the French name for both Wichita and Caddo Indians, who acted as middlemen for them as the Huron had done for the French the century before.

British Trade

England, after the takeover of New Netherland from the Dutch in 1664, inherited a trade relationship with the Iroquois. They also developed trade relations with tribes in the fur-rich untapped Hudson Bay region. Claim to the area was based on the voyage of Henry Hudson in 1610. The fur-trading expedition of Médard Chouart des Groseilliers and his brother-in-law Pierre-Esprit Radisson to the region in 1668–69 led to the founding of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1670. The English, rather than sending traders inland to collect furs as the French did, established trading posts for barter with the Indians—especially the Cree and Chipewayan—at the mouths of the large rivers that drained into the bay. Ships could come and go in the summertime when the northern waters were free of ice. At this time, England did not know the extent of Rupert's Land, as its northern holdings were called, after Prince Rupert, the Hudson's Bay Company's chief backer and first governor. The French also claimed the Hudson Bay region and sent out various military expeditions against British posts, with some successes, and continued to play a dominant role in the fur trade until England's ultimate victory in the French and Indian Wars and the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

Starting in the 1780s, the Hudson's Bay Company also encountered fierce competition from the North West Company, founded by Scottish interests in Montreal. The rivalry spurred a period of extensive exploration in which new Indian contacts were established, especially among the tribes of the Canadian West. A "Nor'wester," Sir Alexander Mackenzie, became the first non-Indian to cross the North American continent north of Mexico in the early 1790s. David Thompson, who worked for both companies at different times in his career, mapped much of the Canadian West in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The two companies merged in 1821 under the name of the older company, and the Hudson's Bay Company thrived in the fur trade for years to come.

Russian Trade

During the period of conflict between France and Great Britain, Russia also began developing its fur trade. Russia had been a world source of furs for centuries, especially luxury furs. With fur-bearing animals depleted in western parts, the promyshlenniki—Russian fur traders and hunters—pushed eastward into Siberia. Early traders, such as Yerofey Pavlovich Khabarov, who explored the Amur River in southeastern Siberia in the mid-17th century, conducted some trade in the region. In the mid-18th century, Emelyan Basov, one of the Cossacks who explored eastern Russia, developed the fur trade as far as the Kamchatka Peninsula.

In the years after Danish Vitus Jonassen Bering's and Russian Aleksey Ilyich Chirikov's voyage of exploration to Alaska on behalf of Russia in 1741, the promyshlenniki extended operations to North America, reaching the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan mainland, where the sea otter was plentiful. In the early years, the traders formed ad hoc companies, with no rules governing their operations or their exploitative treatment of the Aleut, the native peoples on the Aleutian Islands, and the Inuit (Eskimo), on the mainland. The typical early Russian method of acquiring furs was to enter a native village, take hostages either by means of violence or with the threat of violence, pass out traps to the men, then demand furs in exchange for the lives of the women and children. If the men failed to deliver furs, hostages would be executed. Then, when the furs were collected, the Russians would depart until the next season.

By the 1780s, British and American traders also worked the Pacific coast, especially in Nootka Sound in present-day British Columbia. But they also extended their activity to Alaska in the north and in California in the south. Ships would sail from Boston around South America to fur country, then transport the sea otter skins to China, where there was a great demand.

To protect their territorial claims and economic interest, the Russians, under the impetus of Grigory Ivanovich Shelikov, and his employer, Ivana L. Golikiv, who had set up a base at Okhotsk in Siberia, began establishing permanent colonies, the first at Three Saints on Kodiak Island in 1784. Because of Shelikov's efforts and those of Aleksandr Andreevich Baranov, in his employ, in 1799, the Russian-American Company was chartered, with a monopoly in all Russian territory in North America. By 1812, that territory extended to northern California, where Fort Ross was founded near Bodega Bay.

American Trade

During colonial times, U.S. interests participated only minimally in the fur trade. The deerskin trade flourished in the Southeast, however. In 1808, John Jacob Astor founded the American Fur Company, having various subsidiaries to follow, such as the Pacific Fur Company, with a trading post at Astoria, Oregon, and the South West Company, operating near the Great Lakes. The next year, a group in St. Louis on the Mississippi River founded the St. Louis Missouri Fur Company. Among the partners were Jean Pierre Chouteau, his son Auguste Pierre Chouteau, Manuel Lisa, William Clark, Antoine Pierre Menard, and Andrew Henry.

Both enterprises sponsored numerous expeditions into the western wilderness. In 1816, the American Congress enacted a law excluding British traders from the United States. Another American entrepreneur, William Henry Ashley, became a powerful force in the fur trade with his Rocky Mountain Fur Company, founded by him and Andrew Henry in 1822. Many of the men who worked for and traded with him came to be known as the mountain men. Among the most famous of them were Thomas Fitzpatrick, Jedediah Strong Smith, and William Lewis Sublette. In the 1820s–1830s, they traveled the Native American trails and passes of the West as hunters, trappers, and traders, and like the voyageurs and the coureurs de bois of French Canada, they learned wilderness survival skills from Native Americans.

During these same years, the U.S. government also played a part in the fur trade, through a system of federal trading houses, called the "factory system." From 1790 to 1799, the U.S. Congress passed four Trade and Intercourse Acts pertaining to Indian affairs and commerce. Among other regulations, the acts provided for the appointment of Indian agents and licensing of federal traders, who could barter with the Indians for furs. In 1802, a follow-up Trade and Intercourse Act codified the four earlier ones. And, in 1806, an Office of Indian Trade was created within the War Department to administer the federal trading houses. The "factory system" was abolished in 1822, at which time provisions were made for the licensing of independent traders, who were better able to operate in the wilderness.

The international fur market experienced a decline starting in the late 1830s, partly because the beaver hat went out of style in favor of the silk hat. Other factors contributed to the end of the centuries-long fur boom: the depletion of fur-bearing animals and the advance of farming settlements. As for the mountain men and other counterparts, many of them stayed active in the American West long after the fur decline, as soldiers, scouts, and guides. In 1867, Russia gave up its North American venture and sold Alaska to the United States, and in 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company sold off its vast territorial holdings to the Canadian government. Yet the fur trade had made its mark in the history of exploration; the traders had pioneered routes, mapped vast regions, and opened up vast areas to non-Indian settlement and other types of commercial development. Nowadays, the fur trade is still carried out in the far north, mostly by indigenous peoples.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-11 20:47:00编辑过]
8#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:59:00 | 显示全部楼层

8

Pueblo Revolt

Also known as: Pueblo Rebellion; Popé's Rebellion  
Date: 1680 
From:
                        Atlas of the North American Indian, Revised Edition.
                    

To the Spanish in rintPage('EAHI271','AmericanHistory');">New Mexico during the 17th century, Native Americans were both serfs to exploit and souls to convert. A governor in Santa Fe, along with his officials and soldiers, ruled the territory; ranchers with land grants developed it; and rintPage('EAHI137','AmericanHistory');">Franciscan friars based within the Indian pueblos preached their brand of Catholicism. Indians were exploited by all of them. According to the rintPage('EAHI320','AmericanHistory');">repartimiento system, the Indians owed taxes in the form of labor, crops, and woven goods. And since they were essential to Spanish economy, Indians were not driven from their ancestral lands as was so often the case with tribes living near British colonies. Rather, they were welcomed as if they were domestic animals existing to serve a higher form of life. The question of whether the Indians even possessed human souls was in dispute for a time among the Spanish, until Pope Julius II decreed in 1512 that they were in fact descended from Adam and Eve. In any case, the Spanish considered the Indians heathens and, while striving to "save" them, conveniently lived off their crops and had churches built by them and amassed personal fortunes by selling their handiwork in Mexico and Europe. Moreover, the Christian formula for salvation demanded the suppression of Indian religion and ritual.

The issue of religion was the primary factor in the rintPage('EAHII338','AmericanHistory');">Pueblo Rebellion.1
                rintPage('ind2423','AmericanHistory');">Pueblo
                rintPage('ind1746','AmericanHistory');">medicine men, compelled to practice their old ways in secret, fiercely resented the non-Indian presence. Exploitation and cruelty on the part of the Spanish were secondary causes. And the Indians had long memories for past injustices, such as rintPage('EAHI281','AmericanHistory');">Juan de Oñate's brutal suppression of the uprising at the Acoma Pueblo in 1598–99.

One medicine man by the name of rintPage('ind0804','AmericanHistory');">Popé, a Tewa Indian from the pueblo of San Juan along the Rio Grande, was especially militant. Little is known of his early years other than that he refused to curtail his traditional religion, centered in kivas—underground ceremonial chambers— and that he refused to convert to Christianity. It also is known that, as Spanish officials became aware of Popé's recalcitrance, they harassed him by arresting him at least three times and even flogging him. He proudly displayed the scars on his back to others as a symbol of resistance. Popé's militancy was such that he even exposed his own son-in-law as a Spanish informer and permitted his death at the hands of angry followers.

Meanwhile, disputes between Spanish civil and religious officials over power and influence in the new territory had undermined the authority of both over the Indians. (In certain instances, the priests argued against lay officials on behalf of Indian rights.) Moreover, the long series of droughts beginning in 1660, as well as raids by the nomadic rintPage('ind2312','AmericanHistory');">Apache, gave converted Indians reason to doubt the effectiveness of the new religion. And Popé provided the leadership necessary for organized resistance and military success.

In the summer of 1680, Popé sent runners throughout the region—to Tewa, Tiwa, Towa, and Keres Indian pueblos along and west of the Rio Grande, to rintPage('ind2353','AmericanHistory');">Hopi and Zuni pueblos in the west, and even to Apache camps—to spread word of the coming rebellion. Each runner carried a cord of maguey fibers with a specific number of knots to indicate the number of days until the general uprising on August 11. To Christianized chiefs he didn't completely trust, Popé sent knotted cords indicating a later date, August 13. Some did in fact report Popé's plan to the friars in their pueblos, who in turn sent word to governor Antonio de Oterm'n in Santa Fe. But Popé's ruse worked. Many Spanish elsewhere—priests and garrisons at pueblos, ranchers at outlying haciendas—were killed in surprise raids. And one pueblo after another joined the rebellion—Taos, San Juan, Tesuque, Santa Clara, Picuris, Pecos, and others.

After successes elsewhere, an army of some 500 Pueblo Indians reached Santa Fe on August 15, where they climbed on top of the abandoned adobe buildings on the town's outskirts. Santa Fe had a garrison of only 50 professional soldiers, but they were armed with brass cannon behind the palace walls. Many citizens also bore arms. On-and-off fighting lasted for days, with the Spanish usually attacking first in attempts to dislodge the besieging Indians. Indian reinforcements arrived the first day from San Juan and Picuris—the latter under Popé, it is thought. The fiercest fighting occurred on the third day, when the Indians managed to reach the town's water ditch and divert the supply, and also attack the chapel. After still one more day of indecisive fighting, the Indians finally abandoned their siege and retreated into the surrounding hills.

Several days later, on August 21, the surviving Spanish, including Antonio de Oterm'n, the governor of New Mexico, departed Santa Fe and began the long trek southward to El Paso, passing along the way many dead Spanish, burned-out ranches, and deserted pueblos. By the end of the uprising, about 400 Spanish had been killed, including 21 of 33 friars; 2,500 other settlers had been driven back to Mexico. Popé and his followers had repelled a colonial power. Then they proceeded to stamp out any remnants of Spanish culture and religion.

Yet Popé's fanaticism, so critical to the success of the Pueblo Rebellion, now contributed to its undoing. Those who wavered slightly from the Indian way—even, for example, by using practical Spanish goods such as tools—were punished, some even executed. With dissatisfaction growing among his followers, Popé became more and more of a despot. He chose to live in Santa Fe and even adopted many of the trappings and pretenses of the colonial officials before him, including the use of the governor's carriage to ride about town as a symbol of power. When he died in 1688, his alliance had all but dissolved. Other factors contributed to the dissolution of Indian unity and the weakening of the pueblos, such as drought and Apache raids.

The early attempts at reconquest failed, although Spanish troops under General Domingo Jeronza Petriz de Cruzate, who had replaced Oterm'n, took Zia Pueblo in August 1688, killing more than 600 of its inhabitants. In August 1692, an expedition marched northward out of El Paso under Don Diego de Vargas, appointed as new governor. His force met little resistance and reoccupied Santa Fe the following month. There were continuing outbreaks of violence against the Spanish, especially in the western pueblos, such as at Jemez Pueblo. In July 1694, Vargas's men, along with Santa Ana, San Felipe, and Zia Pueblo auxiliaries under the Keres Indian Bartolomé de Ojeda, moved on the Towa rebels from Jemez and defeated them; 84 warriors died in the fighting, some leaping off cliffs rather than being captured. But Spain once again ruled Pueblo Indian country.

Yet for a decade at least, the conquistadores and other purveyors of an alien culture had been stymied while the Pueblo Indians once again had ruled their homeland.


1NOTE: Rebellions against the Spanish and Mexicans: The Spanish and Mexican advance out of Mexico into what is now the United States was made difficult by traditional raiding peoples of the Southwest and southern Great Plains, in particular the Apache, Navajo (Dineh), and Comanche. Despite numerous campaigns against them and various administrative schemes, Spanish then Mexicans (following Mexican independence in 1821) could never completely pacify these masters of guerrilla warfare. Warriors of these tribes possessed a remarkable knowledge of the terrain, plus great endurance and mobility, and rarely risked open combat against a more numerous enemy. Other Plains Indians beside the Comanche also were known to resist Spanish incursions into their territory. In 1720, allied Pawnee and Otoe warriors defeated Spanish soldiers on the Platte River in present-day Nebraska, a victory critical in preventing Spanish expansion northward. Yet others besides nomadic raiding tribes resisted subjugation. Sedentary agricultural peoples of the Southwest, as well as hunting, fishing, and gathering peoples of California—rarely depicted as warlike in popular culture—made dramatic stands against Spanish colonial forces in their homelands.

To the Spanish in New Mexico during the 17th century, Native Americans were both serfs to exploit and souls to convert. A governor in Santa Fe, along with his officials and soldiers, ruled the territory; ranchers with land grants developed it; and Franciscan friars based within the Indian pueblos preached their brand of Catholicism. Indians were exploited by all of them. According to the repartimiento system, the Indians owed taxes in the form of labor, crops, and woven goods. And since they were essential to Spanish economy, Indians were not driven from their ancestral lands as was so often the case with tribes living near British colonies. Rather, they were welcomed as if they were domestic animals existing to serve a higher form of life. The question of whether the Indians even possessed human souls was in dispute for a time among the Spanish, until Pope Julius II decreed in 1512 that they were in fact descended from Adam and Eve. In any case, the Spanish considered the Indians heathens and, while striving to "save" them, conveniently lived off their crops and had churches built by them and amassed personal fortunes by selling their handiwork in Mexico and Europe. Moreover, the Christian formula for salvation demanded the suppression of Indian religion and ritual.

The issue of religion was the primary factor in the Pueblo Rebellion.1
        Pueblo
        medicine men, compelled to practice their old ways in secret, fiercely resented the non-Indian presence. Exploitation and cruelty on the part of the Spanish were secondary causes. And the Indians had long memories for past injustices, such as Juan de Oñate's brutal suppression of the uprising at the Acoma Pueblo in 1598–99.

One medicine man by the name of Popé, a Tewa Indian from the pueblo of San Juan along the Rio Grande, was especially militant. Little is known of his early years other than that he refused to curtail his traditional religion, centered in kivas—underground ceremonial chambers— and that he refused to convert to Christianity. It also is known that, as Spanish officials became aware of Popé's recalcitrance, they harassed him by arresting him at least three times and even flogging him. He proudly displayed the scars on his back to others as a symbol of resistance. Popé's militancy was such that he even exposed his own son-in-law as a Spanish informer and permitted his death at the hands of angry followers.

Meanwhile, disputes between Spanish civil and religious officials over power and influence in the new territory had undermined the authority of both over the Indians. (In certain instances, the priests argued against lay officials on behalf of Indian rights.) Moreover, the long series of droughts beginning in 1660, as well as raids by the nomadic Apache, gave converted Indians reason to doubt the effectiveness of the new religion. And Popé provided the leadership necessary for organized resistance and military success.

In the summer of 1680, Popé sent runners throughout the region—to Tewa, Tiwa, Towa, and Keres Indian pueblos along and west of the Rio Grande, to Hopi and Zuni pueblos in the west, and even to Apache camps—to spread word of the coming rebellion. Each runner carried a cord of maguey fibers with a specific number of knots to indicate the number of days until the general uprising on August 11. To Christianized chiefs he didn't completely trust, Popé sent knotted cords indicating a later date, August 13. Some did in fact report Popé's plan to the friars in their pueblos, who in turn sent word to governor Antonio de Oterm'n in Santa Fe. But Popé's ruse worked. Many Spanish elsewhere—priests and garrisons at pueblos, ranchers at outlying haciendas—were killed in surprise raids. And one pueblo after another joined the rebellion—Taos, San Juan, Tesuque, Santa Clara, Picuris, Pecos, and others.

After successes elsewhere, an army of some 500 Pueblo Indians reached Santa Fe on August 15, where they climbed on top of the abandoned adobe buildings on the town's outskirts. Santa Fe had a garrison of only 50 professional soldiers, but they were armed with brass cannon behind the palace walls. Many citizens also bore arms. On-and-off fighting lasted for days, with the Spanish usually attacking first in attempts to dislodge the besieging Indians. Indian reinforcements arrived the first day from San Juan and Picuris—the latter under Popé, it is thought. The fiercest fighting occurred on the third day, when the Indians managed to reach the town's water ditch and divert the supply, and also attack the chapel. After still one more day of indecisive fighting, the Indians finally abandoned their siege and retreated into the surrounding hills.

Several days later, on August 21, the surviving Spanish, including Antonio de Oterm'n, the governor of New Mexico, departed Santa Fe and began the long trek southward to El Paso, passing along the way many dead Spanish, burned-out ranches, and deserted pueblos. By the end of the uprising, about 400 Spanish had been killed, including 21 of 33 friars; 2,500 other settlers had been driven back to Mexico. Popé and his followers had repelled a colonial power. Then they proceeded to stamp out any remnants of Spanish culture and religion.

Yet Popé's fanaticism, so critical to the success of the Pueblo Rebellion, now contributed to its undoing. Those who wavered slightly from the Indian way—even, for example, by using practical Spanish goods such as tools—were punished, some even executed. With dissatisfaction growing among his followers, Popé became more and more of a despot. He chose to live in Santa Fe and even adopted many of the trappings and pretenses of the colonial officials before him, including the use of the governor's carriage to ride about town as a symbol of power. When he died in 1688, his alliance had all but dissolved. Other factors contributed to the dissolution of Indian unity and the weakening of the pueblos, such as drought and Apache raids.

The early attempts at reconquest failed, although Spanish troops under General Domingo Jeronza Petriz de Cruzate, who had replaced Oterm'n, took Zia Pueblo in August 1688, killing more than 600 of its inhabitants. In August 1692, an expedition marched northward out of El Paso under Don Diego de Vargas, appointed as new governor. His force met little resistance and reoccupied Santa Fe the following month. There were continuing outbreaks of violence against the Spanish, especially in the western pueblos, such as at Jemez Pueblo. In July 1694, Vargas's men, along with Santa Ana, San Felipe, and Zia Pueblo auxiliaries under the Keres Indian Bartolomé de Ojeda, moved on the Towa rebels from Jemez and defeated them; 84 warriors died in the fighting, some leaping off cliffs rather than being captured. But Spain once again ruled Pueblo Indian country.

Yet for a decade at least, the conquistadores and other purveyors of an alien culture had been stymied while the Pueblo Indians once again had ruled their homeland.


1NOTE: Rebellions against the Spanish and Mexicans: The Spanish and Mexican advance out of Mexico into what is now the United States was made difficult by traditional raiding peoples of the Southwest and southern Great Plains, in particular the Apache, Navajo (Dineh), and Comanche. Despite numerous campaigns against them and various administrative schemes, Spanish then Mexicans (following Mexican independence in 1821) could never completely pacify these masters of guerrilla warfare. Warriors of these tribes possessed a remarkable knowledge of the terrain, plus great endurance and mobility, and rarely risked open combat against a more numerous enemy. Other Plains Indians beside the Comanche also were known to resist Spanish incursions into their territory. In 1720, allied Pawnee and Otoe warriors defeated Spanish soldiers on the Platte River in present-day Nebraska, a victory critical in preventing Spanish expansion northward. Yet others besides nomadic raiding tribes resisted subjugation. Sedentary agricultural peoples of the Southwest, as well as hunting, fishing, and gathering peoples of California—rarely depicted as warlike in popular culture—made dramatic stands against Spanish colonial forces in their homelands.


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-11 20:52:33编辑过]
9#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:59:00 | 显示全部楼层
9
10#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-10 10:59:00 | 显示全部楼层
10
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: TOEFL / IELTS

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-8-30 03:11
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部