Dragging Canoe Analysis

1374 Words3 Pages

Not many know about Dragging Canoe and the battle he fought during the American Revolutionary War. The Native American’s role in the Revolutionary War was very important, but not well known. As a result, the Revolutionary War can come across as one-sided. Dragging Canoe fought for the Native American’s existence in the colonies. First, he was strongly opposed to Henderson’s Purchase or also called the Transylvania Purchase. Secondly, Dragging Canoe’s raid at “Battle of the Bluffs” became an issue for the colonists. And lastly, there was negotiating done between the British and Colonists would somehow effect Dragging Canoe, his warriors, and the future for the Native Americans.
How would you feel if your land was taken away from you, and …show more content…

There were some that saw the Henderson purchase as a financial gain; and there were some, including Dragging Canoe that saw the Purchase as a mistake that could lead to Cherokee extinction (Bender). First off, the land that Henderson wanted was hunting ground to all the Cherokee Indians and other Indian tribes on that land (Bender). Whether there were Indians that were for the idea of selling about 20 million acres of land; the fact is, Indians needed that land to live and strive off of (Bender). If that land was sold off, and it was, the quality of Cherokee life would decrease as Dragging Canoe predicted (Bender). Dragging Canoe was against this idea because it could and did effect the Cherokees negatively (Bender). What made this situation even harder for Dragging Canoe was that his father, Attakullakulla and war leader Oconostota were all for the idea of selling off Indian land and signed the deal (1). But there was a problem with the signing of this deal; the Cherokee law. …show more content…

The “Battle of the Bluffs” was exactly this. Even though there were Indians that agreed with Henderson’s purchase, that did not mean some were not planning for war time like Dragging Canoe (Bender). What made Dragging Canoe a brutal and difficult opponent was his strong opposition to this deal and the white settlers: this would make for a truly bloody battle (Heape). On April 2nd,1781, Fort Nashborough was attacked by Dragging Canoe and his war party (Bender). This was known as the “Battle of the Bluffs” which, was an Indian raid on Fort Nashborough (Bender). Fort Nashborough was created by the Robertson/Donelson forces in 1780 to protect against Indian attacks (Bender). Besides preventing further Indian attacks, the main reason for setting up camp at Fort Nashborough, was to meet up with Robertson’s group (Bender). This could possibly be an advantage for the two groups because of strength in number. Dragging Canoe had to think long and hard on how to attack the colonists. Two colonial forces were about to unite and that could be an end for the Indian tribes. The dilemma for Dragging Canoe was how was he going to have an advantage over the colonists (Bender). Just attacking white settlers would not be enough to win. In fact, Dragging Canoe used the Revolutionary war to his advantage by resisting colonial forces taking over Cherokee territory (Bender). Another advantage

Show More
Related

  • Samuel De Champlain: The Father Of New France

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    The indians had created the birch-bark canoe. They had started a war against their enemies and Champlain had to settle the argument.

    Read More

  • Chief Joseph And Helen Hunt Jackson: A Comparative Analysis

    435 Words  | 1 Pages

    Hunt Jackson was one of the very few whites to sympathize with the mistreatment of the indians. felt strongly had very contrasting approach. Stated in the excerpt, “... among these three hundred bands of indians one which has not suffered cruelly at the hands either of the government or of white settlers.” Simply put, the lives of all indians had been affected due to the lies and broken promises made by the government. In order for the lives of Indians to change, cheating, robbing, and breaking promises must cease. Hunt Jackson differentes the argument compared to Chief Jackson when it comes to the prescription of what needs to happen to the Indians. It was supported that not all Indians at the same time should be given freedom. Owing to the fact that almost all Indians were a “barrier to civilization”, for Western civilization was unknown as a daily practice. In addition, there is much distrust that can be viewed and sights of possible danger toward the whites. All in all, Chief Joseph and Helen Hunt Jackson shared common beliefs toward the fact that Indians deserve equal treatment, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, while Helen hunt Jackson opposes the idea of full citizenship to all indians, Chief Joseph finds it a necessity to be at peace and

    Read More

  • Analysis of The Boat by Alistar MacLeod

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    “The Boat”, narrated by a Mid-western university professor, Alistar MacLeod, is a short story concerning a family and their different perspectives on freedom vs. tradition. The mother pushes the son to embrace more of a traditional lifestyle by taking over the fathers fishing business, while on the other hand the father pushes the son to live more autonomously in an unconstrained manner. “The Boat” focuses on the father and how his personality influences the son’s choice on how to live and how to make decisions that will ultimately affect his life. In Alistair MacLeod’s, “The Boat”, MacLeod suggest that although dreams and desires give people purpose, the nobility of accepting a life of discontentment out weighs the selfishness of following ones own true desires. In the story, the father is obligated to provide for his family as well as to continue the fishing tradition that was inherited from his own father. The mother emphasizes the boat and it’s significance when she consistently asked the father “ How did things go in the boat today” since tradition was paramount to the mother. H...

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal 1980 DBQ

    1271 Words  | 3 Pages

    Under the Jackson Administration, the changes made shaped national Indian policy. Morally, Andrew Jackson dismissed prior ideas that natives would gradually assimilate into white culture, and believed that removing Indians from their homes was the best answer for both the natives and Americans. Politically, before Jackson treaties were in place that protected natives until he changed those policies, and broke those treaties, violating the United States Constitution. Under Jackson’s changes, the United States effectively gained an enormous amount of land. The removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s changed the national policy in place when Jackson became President as evidenced by the moral, political, constitutional, and practical concerns of the National Indian Policy.

    Read More

  • DBQ on Jackson and the Indian Removal

    1646 Words  | 4 Pages

    The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan.     First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands.     In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them.      The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...

    Read More

  • William Apess And The Mashpee Revolt

    1695 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Pequot tribe inhabited most of Southeastern Connecticut when the colonists arrived to the new world. The Pequot were among the most feared tribes in Southern New England in relation to the colonists. Actually, the name “Pequot” is of Algonquian descent and translates to mean “destroyers”. As the Pequot were migrating westward continuous altercations with the colonists arose. One incident in particular led to the murder of an English man believed to be a traitor by the Pequot. John Endicott, of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, organized an attack against the Pequot in retaliation for the murder of the alleged traitor, John Oldham. On May 26, 1637 the Pequot were attacked by some colonists as well as the Pequot former tribesmen the Mohegan and Uncas. Nearly all the Pequot villages were burned and nearly all of the Pequot were killed. Some small groups did escape but most were found and either murdered or sold into slavery to other Indian nations as well as residents of the West Indies. After the “Pequot War”, the Pequot name was all but eliminated giving way to the Mohegan. The pride of the Pequot people and their immense hatred of the Mohegan tribe were very prevalent t...

    Read More

  • American History in the book White Devil

    1239 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...h and the French and Indians, but shows some of the ironic nature of this conflict: that due to kidnapping and tribal adoption, some Abenaki Indians were likely to have almost as many English ancestors as the frontiersmen they opposed. The English frontiersmen could be as "savage" as the Indians. Brumwell does very well dispelling the clichés and stereotypes that many have become accustomed to. He uses records of the Abenaki Indian oral tradition to give a voice to both sides. It is a great book from start to finish. This is a true history buffs companion and a great addition to any library. The book is as complex in its knowledge as it is simplistic and detailed in its imagery. As a result, this book can be read by both specialists and general readers alike and can be pared with almost any text giving light to the French and Indian War or the aftermath thereof.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Thomas King's 'The Inconvenient Indian'

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Thomas King’s novel, The Inconvenient Indian, the story of North America’s history is discussed from his original viewpoint and perspective. In his first chapter, “Forgetting Columbus,” he voices his opinion about how he feel towards the way white people have told America’s history and portraying it as an adventurous tale of triumph, strength and freedom. King hunts down the evidence needed to reveal more facts on the controversial relationship between the whites and natives and how it has affected the culture of Americans. Mainly untangling the confusion between the idea of Native Americans being savages and whites constantly reigning in glory. He exposes the truth about how Native Americans were treated and how their actual stories were

    Read More

  • The Legacy of George Rogers Clark

    1002 Words  | 3 Pages

    Clark, during the 1770’s, was helping Kentucky defend itself from Native Americans. At the time, Clark was transporting gunpowder to the frontier between the Americans and the British. The Native Americans, who lived in the Northwest, disliked the Americans in the Northwest and their claim on Kentucky and with the British backing, waged war with the Americans. Clark was now in charge of defending the settlements and was promoted to major. Clark then made plans in taking British held forts in the region and persuaded Governor Patrick Henry to support him in capturing the forts. Clark had won the support of Patrick Henry, was promoted to lieutenant colonel, and was given command of the mission (“George Clark” 1). With the command of the mission, Clark had lead 175 men who traveled to Fort Kaskaskia, Illinois in six days. The fort was almost defenseless and was easily taken with Clark’s force. Clark had sent Captain Leonard Helm to capture Fort Sackville, after learning that the fort was undefended from American spies. Leonard Helm had then captured the fort, but was taken back by Henry Hamilton shortly after. Henry Hamilton, the famous British “Hair Buyer”, used militia and Native Americans to take Fort Sackville. In the winter, Clark lead a force of 170 men ...

    Read More

  • Native Reactions To The Invasion Of America By James Axtell

    1019 Words  | 3 Pages

    The article, “Native Reactions to the invasion of America”, is written by a well-known historian, James Axtell to inform the readers about the tragedy that took place in the Native American history. All through the article, Axtell summarizes the life of the Native Americans after Columbus acquainted America to the world. Axtell launches his essay by pointing out how Christopher Columbus’s image changed in the eyes of the public over the past century. In 1892, Columbus’s work and admirations overshadowed the tears and sorrows of the Native Americans. However, in 1992, Columbus’s undeserved limelight shifted to the Native Americans when the society rediscovered the history’s unheard voices and became much more evident about the horrific tragedy of the Natives Indians.

    Read More

  • Tecumseh

    597 Words  | 2 Pages

    Tecumseh ,Shawnee war chief, was born at Old Piqua, on the Mad River in western Ohio. In 1774, his father, Puckeshinwa, was killed at the Battle of Point Pleasant, and in 1779 his mother, Methoataske, accompanied those Shawnees who migrated to Missouri, later died. Raised by an older sister, Tecumpease, Tecumseh would play war games with other fellow youths in his tribe. Tecumseh accompanied an older brother, Chiksika, on a series of raids against frontier settlements in Kentucky and Tennessee in the late 1780’s. Chiksika had a vision that he would not survive the battle at Buchanan’s station he went ahead as plan and attacked the stockade and was mortally wounded and was carried from the battle field and the dying warrior asked not to be buried but to be placed on a hill. Tecumseh and the other’s retreated back to a Cherokee village where most went back to Ohio while Tecumseh and some other warriors stayed behind. After that Tecumseh went on mostly hunting but occasionally attacking settler’s. After that moved back towards home and come to find out that the Shawnee’s had moved on to where it’s much safer. The battle of Fallen Timber’s broke confidence in British assistance as well as many casualties. Pissed off by the Indian defeat, he refused to sign the Treaty of Greenville (1795). In the 1800’s Tecumseh began to show signs of a prominent war chief. He led a group of yong Indian warriors to a village on the White River in east-central Indiana. There in 1805 Lalawethika ex...

    Read More

  • Native American Perspective on Indian Removal Act

    800 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...convince us Indians that our removal was necessary and beneficial. In my eyes, the agreement only benefited Andrew Jackson. It is apparent that Jackson neglected to realize how the Indian Removal act would affect us Indians. When is the government justified in forcibly removing people from the land they occupy? If you were a Native American, how would you have respond to Jackson? These questions need to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not Jackson was justified. After carefully examining these questions and considering both the pros and cons of this act, I’m sure you would agree that the removal of Native Americans was not justified under the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was not able to see the damaging consequences of the Indian removal act because of his restricted perspective.

    Read More

  • Many Differences Between Disney's Pocohontas and John Smith's The General History of Virginia

    692 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Smith explains the hardships of the voyage in the “General History of Virginia” he and others endured. While finally landing on land and discovering the head of the Chickahamania River, The colony endured Disease, severe weather, Native American attacks, and starvation all threatened to destroy the colony. Smith talks about his accomplishments of being a “good leader” and how he helped in many ways. John Smith was captured by the Native Americans and brought back to the camp. Within an hour, the Native Americans prepared to shoot him, but the Native Americans done as Chief Powhatan ordered and brought stones to beat Smiths brains out. John Smith gave an ivory double compass to the Chief of Powhatan. The Native Americans marveled at the parts of the compass. After the Native Americans admired the compass for an hour Chief Powhatan held...

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson Essay

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Indian removal was so important to Jackson that he went back to Tennessee to have the first negotiations in person. He gave the Indians a couple simple alternatives. Alternatives like to submit to state authority, or migrate beyond the Mississippi. Jackson Offered generous aid on one hand and while holding the threat of subjugation in the other. The Chickasaws and Choctaws submitted quickly. The only tribe that resisted until the end was the Cherokees. President Jackson’s presidency was tarnished by the way the U.S. government handled the Native Americans. Although financially, and economically Jackson truly was a good leader, some people view him in a negative way because of the “Indian Removal Act.”

    Read More

  • White Settlers and Native Americans

    1863 Words  | 4 Pages

    Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."

    Read More

More about Dragging Canoe Analysis

Open Document