England and America in 1600-1700s

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is from Knickerbocker’s History of New York by Washinton Irving. While it is very humorous, I think it is also pretty true about how Europeans felt about the worth of Native Americans.

"The question which has thus suddenly arisen is, What right had the first discoverers of America to land and take possession of a country without first gaining the consent of its inhabitants, or yielding them an adequate compensation for their territory?—a question which has withstood many fierce assaults, and has given much distress of mind to multitudes of kind-hearted folk. And, indeed, until it be totally vanquished, and put to rest, the worthy people of America can by no means enjoy the soil they inhabit with clear right and title, and quiet, unsullied conscience.

The first source of right by which property is acquired in a country is discovery. For as all mankind have an equal right to anything which has never before been appropriated, so any nation that discovers an uninhabited country, and takes possession thereof, is considered as enjoying full property, and absolute, unquestionable empire therein.

This proposition being admitted, it follows clearly that the Europeans who first visited America were the real discoverers of the same; nothing being necessary to the establishment of this fact but simply to prove that it was totally uninhabited by man. This would at first appear to be a point of some difficulty, for it is well known that this quarter of the world abounded with certain animals, that walked erect on two feet, had something of the human countenance, uttered certain unintelligible sounds, very much like language; in short, had a marvelous resemblance to human beings. But the zealous and enlightened fathers who accompanied the discoverers, for the purpose of promoting the kingdom of heaven by establishing fat monasteries and bishoprics on earth, soon cleared up this point, greatly to the satisfaction of his holiness the Pope and of all Christian voyagers and discoverers.

They plainly proved, and, as there were no Indian writers arose on the other side, the fact was considered as fully admitted and established, that the two-legged race of animals before mentioned were mere cannibals, detestable monsters, and many of them giants—which last description of vagrants have, since the time of Gog, Magog, and Goliath, been considered as outlaws, and have received no quarter in either history, chivalry, or song. Indeed, even the philosophic Bacon declared the Americans to be people proscribed by the laws of nature, inasmuch as they had a barbarous custom of sacrificing men, and feeding upon man’s flesh.

Nor are these all the proofs of their utter barbarism; among many other writers of discernment, Ulla tells us, “their imbecility is so visible that one can hardly form an idea of them different from what one has of the brutes. Nothing disturbs the tranquillity of their souls, equally insensible to disasters and to prosperity. Though half naked, they are as contented as a monarch in his most splendid array. Fear makes no impression on them, and respect as little.” All this is furthermore supported by the authority of M. Boggier. “It is not easy,” says he, “to describe the degree of their indifference for wealth and all its advantages. One does not well know what motives to propose to them when one would persuade them to any service. It is vain to offer them money; they answer they are not hungry.” And Vane gas confirms the whole, assuring us that “ambition they have none, and are more desirous of being thought strong than valiant. The objects of ambition with us—honor, fame, reputation, riches, posts, and distinctions—are unknown among them. So that this powerful spring of action, the cause of so much seeming good and real evil in the world, has no power over them. In a word, these unhappy mortals may be compared to children, in whom the development of reason is not completed.”"
 
It seems to me that the English might have taken a great deal of land (stolen, tricked or by war). Then the new American government took it from England. That government’s children and grandchildren took more land as the country moved west.

Is that an accurate statement.

So did the thief, England, get their land stolen by USA?
Ha! Good question. What comes around, goes around. 😃 There were a lot of other nationalities in America at the time of the Revolution, (not to mention indentured servants and penal colonies), so I don’t think most Americans identified with the English rule.
 
… But the zealous and enlightened fathers who accompanied the discoverers, for the purpose of promoting the kingdom of heaven by establishing fat monasteries and bishoprics on earth, soon cleared up this point, greatly to the satisfaction of his holiness the Pope and of all Christian voyagers and discoverers.
Typical mid 19th century Black Legend distortion nearly universal among English speaking elites. Step 1: Identify a social injustice. Step 2: Find a way to hang it on the papists. :rolleyes:
 
Typical mid 19th century Black Legend distortion nearly universal among English speaking elites. Step 1: Identify a social injustice. Step 2: Find a way to hang it on the papists. :rolleyes:
Well, there a lot of “discoveries” and “edification of the savages” were done with the blessings of the Church, you got to admit. Also the Crown.
 
Guns, germs, more determined, technology, lots of things. No one simple answer to how it occurred.
 
Exactly my point. While surely mistreated, your native populations still exist. Ours are almost all dead, except for tiny remnants on (until casinos came along) economically unviable lands.

Neither is exactly a shining example of Christian culture at its best, but I personally would rather be exploited economically than murdered. You? 😉
Where are the Ilini native Americans now? Please don’t say Champaign Urbana either.
 
Ridge, perhaps what you say applies well to Nebraska or Kansas or even parts of Missouri (I’m not so familiar with those ecosystems). But my part of Illinois (much wetter than the above areas) was vast prairie land before it got plowed under with only scattered woodlands. But a funny thing happens. Leave pretty much ANY northern IL farm field unattended for 7-8 years and it turns into a brush jungle, and eventually turns into a woodland (cottonwoods, maples, black cherry, red oaks). There is nothing about the climate hereabouts unfriendly to woods. It was prairie hereabouts because of man!

There is a tendency to see man as NOT a part of nature, but that’s usually untrue. At least in my area, the vast prairies only stayed that way because Indians burned them off frequently, often as a technique to force buffalo to killing grounds before they had the horse.
There is a history of glaciation and the retreating glaciers that is a factor in the creation of the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois prairies. Grass was able to take advantage of the freshly deposited mineral-rich soil over the glaciated flatlands during the short growing seasons that are supposed to have existed upon the repeated advances and retreats of the glaciers. Even more important is the action of the repeated advances and retreats of glacial cover, enabling a quickly established tough grass to outcompete woody vegetation. The forests of Kentucky and southern Missouri are rich in the number of species because they are leftover from the subtropical climates existing prior to glaciation. In contrast, those of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, and New England have few species. They were wiped out during glaciation and the hardier more aggressive species got established. Even more important was the quality of the soil. When the ice sheets scraped along southward they carried rich soil and then left behind huge wind deposited material called loess. This rich loess material is in large part responsible for the corn belt getting established. The relocating of soil from the northern tier to the middle tier enabled the latter to thrive.
 
Ridge, perhaps what you say applies well to Nebraska or Kansas or even parts of Missouri (I’m not so familiar with those ecosystems). But my part of Illinois (much wetter than the above areas) was vast prairie land before it got plowed under with only scattered woodlands. But a funny thing happens. Leave pretty much ANY northern IL farm field unattended for 7-8 years and it turns into a brush jungle, and eventually turns into a woodland (cottonwoods, maples, black cherry, red oaks). There is nothing about the climate hereabouts unfriendly to woods. It was prairie hereabouts because of man!

There is a tendency to see man as NOT a part of nature, but that’s usually untrue. At least in my area, the vast prairies only stayed that way because Indians burned them off frequently, often as a technique to force buffalo to killing grounds before they had the horse.
When grasslands became established in the Midwest after the glaciers, they created a thick sod that was tough for woody plants to penetrate. As soon as the mold-board plow broke up the sod, woody plants were better able to get a foothold. That remains true today and is why your section of Illinois seems better able to support woods than before Europeans settled there.
 
The forests of Kentucky and southern Missouri are rich in the number of species because they are leftover from the subtropical climates existing prior to glaciation.
My response is a bit off topic, but I was amused by the above statement. It’s true that Southern Mo, where I live, has an immense variety of flora. It has nearly every eastern species, every western species, every nothern species, every southern species of plants, and some that are found nowhere else.

And the allergens to go with that variety. :eek:
 
When grasslands became established in the Midwest after the glaciers, they created a thick sod that was tough for woody plants to penetrate. As soon as the mold-board plow broke up the sod, woody plants were better able to get a foothold. That remains true today and is why your section of Illinois seems better able to support woods than before Europeans settled there.
I remember reading that when the settlers first broke up the tallgrass prairies with iron plows, the plows would ring because of the tough stuff they were cutting through. I recall reading as well that in the easternmost tallgrass prairie regions, during the growing season, all you could see of a man on horseback in that grass was the man’s head.

Some tallgrass prairie grasses are bunch grasses that have an almost “woody” base of very thick stems, packed tightly together. Hard for anything to root in an environment like that.
 
My response is a bit off topic, but I was amused by the above statement. It’s true that Southern Mo, where I live, has an immense variety of flora. It has nearly every eastern species, every western species, every nothern species, every southern species of plants, and some that are found nowhere else.

And the allergens to go with that variety. :eek:
Yes! Allergens. When I lived in Missouri (St. Louis) the spring allergies were the worst I’ve ever experienced.
 
I remember reading that when the settlers first broke up the tallgrass prairies with iron plows, the plows would ring because of the tough stuff they were cutting through. I recall reading as well that in the easternmost tallgrass prairie regions, during the growing season, all you could see of a man on horseback in that grass was the man’s head.

Some tallgrass prairie grasses are bunch grasses that have an almost “woody” base of very thick stems, packed tightly together. Hard for anything to root in an environment like that.
By the way, if you wanted to see the prairie in something like its original state, where would you go today? Canada?
 
By the way, if you wanted to see the prairie in something like its original state, where would you go today? Canada?
There are bits and pieces of tallgrass prairie here and there. Some are state-maintained. There’s a fairly big one in Kansas, but I’ve never seen it. I think there’s even a tiny one in Illinois, near Chicago. There are some privately owned bits and pieces here and there; probably a lot more of them than anyone knows. I discovered a bit of one on land I own once, on a piece of clear ground in a dense woods. I guess it was just never plowed up by settlers. Could have knocked me over with a feather when I discovered it.

There is, farther west, some state maintained shortgrass prairies as well. I’m pretty sure there’s one of those in western Kansas. But actually, I think most of the Flint Hills area in Ks. is shortgrass prairie, just the way they are.
 
There are bits and pieces of tallgrass prairie here and there. Some are state-maintained. There’s a fairly big one in Kansas, but I’ve never seen it. I think there’s even a tiny one in Illinois, near Chicago. There are some privately owned bits and pieces here and there; probably a lot more of them than anyone knows. I discovered a bit of one on land I own once, on a piece of clear ground in a dense woods. I guess it was just never plowed up by settlers. Could have knocked me over with a feather when I discovered it.

There is, farther west, some state maintained shortgrass prairies as well. I’m pretty sure there’s one of those in western Kansas. But actually, I think most of the Flint Hills area in Ks. is shortgrass prairie, just the way they are.
It’s a pity there’s no national park devoted to native grasslands.
 
It’s a pity there’s no national park devoted to native grasslands.
It seems there are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Grassland

I don’t know the history of any of them. There are those who claim that a true tallgrass prairie is an enormously complex ecosystem, with all sorts of complementary grasses, wildflowers, bacteria, bugs, fungi, on and on and on, and that it’s devilishly hard to recreate a 'true" one.

So, I have no idea how many of them are truly “natural” and how many are re-created. Of course, since Indians used to set the prairies afire every year and the governmental units don’t, one could question which is the “natural” prairie and which isn’t on that basis alone. It depends, I guess, on whether one considers man to be a part of “nature”.
 
It seems there are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Grassland

I don’t know the history of any of them. There are those who claim that a true tallgrass prairie is an enormously complex ecosystem, with all sorts of complementary grasses, wildflowers, bacteria, bugs, fungi, on and on and on, and that it’s devilishly hard to recreate a 'true" one.

So, I have no idea how many of them are truly “natural” and how many are re-created. Of course, since Indians used to set the prairies afire every year and the governmental units don’t, one could question which is the “natural” prairie and which isn’t on that basis alone. It depends, I guess, on whether one considers man to be a part of “nature”.
When I was driving through Saskatchewan I vaguely recall being told (by a guidebook?) that it was prairie land. There were buffalo grazing on it.
 
The land changed ownership in a variety of ways. No one explanation cuts it—not hardly.

Some land was purchased from willing Native American sellers. Some was purchased from very reluctant (read, pretty much at gunpoint or under duress) sellers.

Some was bounty of war: those tribes out East that had allied with Great Britain forfeited their land as a war bounty.

Land held in reservations suffered from changes in the Bureau of Indian Affairs philosophy; at times, the notion was to let the tribes continue their ethnic identity; at other tmes, the view was that Progress meant Assimilation (indeed, few of today’s Native Americans have pure tribal blood).

Jared Sparks makes the excellent point that much of the Indian population was devastated by European disease, making it easier to use force. But it’s pretty clear that up until the Revolutionary War, the Indian population had considerable military power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top