The Land of the Miamis: An Account of the Struggle to Secure Possession of the North-West from the End of the Revolution until 1812Barce, Elmore
History
The Land of the Miamis: An Account of the Struggle to Secure Possession of the North-West from the End of the Revolution until 1812
Barce, Elmore
Indians of North America -- Wars -- 1750-1815; Miami Indians; Northwest, Old -- History
peace of 1763, was a war waged for the control of lands and territory,
notwithstanding the occupancy of the Indian tribes. If a country
acquired either by conquest or prior discovery, is filled with a people
attached to the soil, and having fixed pursuits and habitations, the
opinion of mankind would seem to require that the lands and possessions
of the occupants should not be disturbed, but if the domain discovered
or conquered is filled with a race of savages who make no use of the
land, save for the purpose of hunting over it, a different solution must
of necessity result. There can be no admixture of races where the one is
civilized and the other barbarous. The barbarian must either lose his
savagery and be assimilated, or he must recede. The North American
Indian was not only brave, but fierce. In the wilds and fastnesses of
his native land, he refused to become either a subject or a slave. No
law of the European could be formulated for his control; he obeyed only
the laws of nature under which he roamed in freedom. He knew nothing of
fee or seisin, or the laws of conveyancing, as his white brother knew
it. He knew only that the rivers and the forests were there, and that he
gained his subsistence from them. With him, the strongest and the
fiercest had the right to rule; the right to hunt the buffalo and elk.
The European put fire arms into the hands of the Iroquois warrior, and
that warrior at once made himself master of all north of the Ohio and
east of the Mississippi, without regard to the prior claims of other
tribes. To expect that a savage of this nature could be dealt with under
the ordinary forms and conventions of organized society, was to expect
the impossible. To him, the appearance of a surveyor or a log cabin was
an immediate challenge to his possession. Today he might be brought to
make a treaty, but on the morrow he was filled with a jealous hate
again, and was ready to burn and destroy. On the other hand, to leave
him in the full possession of his country was, as Chief Justice Marshall
said: "To leave the country a wilderness." To stop on the borderland of
savagery and advance no further, meant the retrogression of
civilization. The European idea of ownership was founded on user. The
inevitable consequence was, that the conqueror or discoverer in the new
world claimed the ultimate fee in the soil, and the tribes receding, as
they inevitably did, this fee ripened into present enjoyment. When Great
Britain, therefore, owing to the conquests of George Rogers Clark,
surrendered up to the United States her jurisdiction and control over
the territory north and west of the Ohio river, she did, according to
the precedent and usage established by all the civilized nations of that
day, pass to her grantee or grantees, the ultimate absolute title to the
land itself, notwithstanding its savage occupants, and the right to deal
with these occupants thenceforward became a part of the domestic policy
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account