“In weighing the conduct of an individual, of a group of individuals, or of a nation, we should take into consideration their mental endowment, moral standard, social aptitude and the kind of temptation they meet or that may have been thrust upon them.”(Siles, pg.509) In The Indian Wars of Pennsylvania, this is C. Hale Siles’ argument for categorizing the Native American fighters of the Revolutionary War as immoral and savage. Moreover, he faults them for lacking Christian teachings, and cites this, the absence of Christianity in their lives as the very reason for their barbarity: “The Indian had no back-ground of centuries of Christian civilization, civilization--no knowledge of God of Revelation.”(Siles, pg. 509) Siles further argues that
…show more content…
Both the Americans and the Native Americans waged a war of attrition on each other; directing their efforts on starving the other faster, removing them from their land faster, and claiming the frontier faster. In addition, both sides engaged in guerilla warfare, as for the most part, this war in the frontier was fought by irregular soldiers who turned away from the conventional style of 18th century fighting. And yet, Stiles applauded General John Sullivan’s expedition into Indian Country, which rendered said territory all but destroyed, and led to the deaths of countless non-combatant Native Americans who found themselves suddenly dislocated, without a home: “Terrible was the retribution which he {Sullivan} visited upon them for siding with the British and devastating the American frontier.”(Siles, pg.600) Still, Siles condemned the Native Americans for similar actions, even Joseph Brant, who was renowned for the gentleman-like way in which he carried himself about throughout the war.(Siles, pg.599) As a matter of fact, the one time Siles does criticize the strategy of the Americans, that being in the case of the Gnadenhutten massacre, where American soldiers needlessly slaughtered 96 unarmed Indian civilians in horrible fashion, …show more content…
Hale Sipes wrote his The Indian Wars of Pennsylvania in the 1920s, not too long after the conclusion of World War I, an event that overwhelmed the country with patriotic sentiment. Moreover, the nation had just survived its first “red scare,” and patriots were valued as esteemed members of American society, the incorruptible fighters of socialist subversives. What’s more, Sipes would later go on to serve as senator in Pennsylvania’s state senate from 1937 to 1939, representing the counties of Butler and Armstrong. The histories of both Butler and Armstrong were intertwined with the Revolutionary War. Butler was named after American general Richard Butler, who was slain by Native Americans at the Battle of the Wabash (1791). Meanwhile, Armstrong was named after American general John Armstrong, who fought under George Washington. Siles grew up in Armstrong, a county with proud ties to the revolution. It could be argued that the Native Americans he depicted in his book were simply the Native Americans everyone in his society chose to accept in order to preserve the patriotic virtues of the American frontiersman, the archetype for all American patriots. Racism too is a factor in Sile’s writing, for it was prevalent in Pennsylvania at the time. Nevertheless, Stiles, on account of his “Whig” interpretation of frontier warfare, ultimately fails to add any complexity to the Native American character, let alone add a Native American perspective, simply offering up stereotypical
Both the Americans and the Native Americans waged a war of attrition on each other; directing their efforts on starving the other faster, removing them from their land faster, and claiming the frontier faster. In addition, both sides engaged in guerilla warfare, as for the most part, this war in the frontier was fought by irregular soldiers who turned away from the conventional style of 18th century fighting. And yet, Stiles applauded General John Sullivan’s expedition into Indian Country, which rendered said territory all but destroyed, and led to the deaths of countless non-combatant Native Americans who found themselves suddenly dislocated, without a home: “Terrible was the retribution which he {Sullivan} visited upon them for siding with the British and devastating the American frontier.”(Siles, pg.600) Still, Siles condemned the Native Americans for similar actions, even Joseph Brant, who was renowned for the gentleman-like way in which he carried himself about throughout the war.(Siles, pg.599) As a matter of fact, the one time Siles does criticize the strategy of the Americans, that being in the case of the Gnadenhutten massacre, where American soldiers needlessly slaughtered 96 unarmed Indian civilians in horrible fashion, …show more content…
Hale Sipes wrote his The Indian Wars of Pennsylvania in the 1920s, not too long after the conclusion of World War I, an event that overwhelmed the country with patriotic sentiment. Moreover, the nation had just survived its first “red scare,” and patriots were valued as esteemed members of American society, the incorruptible fighters of socialist subversives. What’s more, Sipes would later go on to serve as senator in Pennsylvania’s state senate from 1937 to 1939, representing the counties of Butler and Armstrong. The histories of both Butler and Armstrong were intertwined with the Revolutionary War. Butler was named after American general Richard Butler, who was slain by Native Americans at the Battle of the Wabash (1791). Meanwhile, Armstrong was named after American general John Armstrong, who fought under George Washington. Siles grew up in Armstrong, a county with proud ties to the revolution. It could be argued that the Native Americans he depicted in his book were simply the Native Americans everyone in his society chose to accept in order to preserve the patriotic virtues of the American frontiersman, the archetype for all American patriots. Racism too is a factor in Sile’s writing, for it was prevalent in Pennsylvania at the time. Nevertheless, Stiles, on account of his “Whig” interpretation of frontier warfare, ultimately fails to add any complexity to the Native American character, let alone add a Native American perspective, simply offering up stereotypical