The Devastating Yakima Wars

1165 Words3 Pages

Had refusing the treaty that America tried to force on them hurt the Plateau Indians severely? Did retaliation cause them to almost come to complete annihilation? My position is that yes, the Plateau Indians made a bad decision when they refused the treaty by the United States, and that more of the Indians would have survived if they’d just moved on to the reservation like they were asked. None of the Yakima Wars would have happened if the Indians would’ve just extinguished their pride, and went peacefully onto a reservation where their people did not have to worry about fighting the whites. The main cause of this conflict was the desire of the United States citizens to move west. If they hadn’t believed in Manifest Destiny, and had the pioneers and government not wanted Indian territory, the treaty would have never been made and the Indians wouldn’t have retaliated the way they did.

The official conflict is that that the citizens and government of the U.S. had almost completely wiped out the Plateau Indians. The Yakima Wars consisted of many people and groups or tribes such as; Gov. Stevens, Kamaikin (Yakima chief), Owhi, Skloom, Showaway, Andrew J. Bolon, Peupeumoxmox (Walla Walla chief), H.W.A. Slaughter, Qualchan, Major Rains, General Wool, Colonel Steptoe, and all of the plateau Indians including the Yakima, the Shoshone, the pauites, the Walla Walla, etc. the Yakima Wars took place during the mid 1850’s until 1858 (Lambert, 150). The Yakima wars took place in eastern Washington at many places and or sites, like Four lakes, the Spokane Plains, the Cascade Mountains, Yakima, Fort Benton, Fort Simcoe, Fort Walla Walla, Walla Walla valley, Union Gap, in addition to a few others. (Schuster, 56)

There were many causes for th...

... middle of paper ...

...and hadn’t tried to force them out, the other factors or causes would have most likely never happened. This conflict could’ve been avoided if the Plateau Indians just moved onto the reservation and not tried to stand up for their land because sooner or later they would’ve lost it to someone else anyway.

Works Cited

1. Lambert, Dale A. Pacific Northwest History. 4th Edition. Wenatchee: Directed Media, 1997. 150-151. Print

2. Schuster, Helen H. The Yakima. New York: Chelsea House Publisher, 1990. 53-73. Print.

3. "USA Yakima War 1855-1858." OnWar.com. Armed Conflicts and Events Data (A.C.E.D.), December 6, 2000. Web. 15 Apr 2010.

4. "Washington Indian Tribes." Access Genealogy. Access Genealogy, 12, April 2010. Web. 16

Apr 2010.

Show More
Related

  • Little Bighorn Mission Command Analysis

    1599 Words  | 4 Pages

    McMurtry, Larry. 2005. Oh What a Slaughter: Massacres in the American West: 1846-1890. 10th Ed. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Read More

  • Yakama Tribe Research Paper

    852 Words  | 2 Pages

    With the expansion the United States into the Pacific Northwest and the rapid encroachment of white settlers into their territory, the Yakama signed the "Treaty with the Yakima" with the United States government in 1855. The Yakama people were able to negotiate for many tribal rights due to their strategic and powerful po...

    Read More

  • The Steptoe Battle

    1827 Words  | 4 Pages

    In 1855, miners discovered Gold in the Colville mines of northeastern Washington Territory. Newspapers such as the Oregonian began running daily advertisements to attract miners into the region. Exciting articles with bold titles of “Colville Gold Mines” exclaimed that, “with a common pan we made $6, $8, $10, and as high as $20 per man!” This news created an influx of white settlement to Washington. Territorial Governor, Isaac I. Stevens encouraged the settlement and proposed to consolidate fourteen tribes w...

    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

  • Talking Back To Civilization Summary

    1150 Words  | 3 Pages

    The American Indians were promised change with the American Indian policy, but as time went on no change was seen. “Indian reform” was easy to promise, but it was not an easy promise to keep as many white people were threatened by Indians being given these rights. The Indian people wanted freedom and it was not being given to them. Arthur C. Parker even went as far as to indict the government for its actions. He brought the charges of: robbing a race of men of their intellectual life, of social organization, of native freedom, of economic independence, of moral standards and racial ideals, of his good name, and of definite civic status (Hoxie 97). These are essentially what the American peoples did to the natives, their whole lives and way of life was taken away,

    Read More

  • Analysis of The Disquisition of Government by John Calhoun

    3726 Words  | 8 Pages

    Eibling, Harold H., et al., eds. History of Our United States. 2nd edition. River Forest, Ill: Laidlaw Brothers, 1968.

    Read More

  • Cruel and Inhuman Treatment of Native Americans by the Colonists

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Unfortunately, this great relationship that was built between the natives and the colonists of mutual respect and gain was coming to a screeching halt. In the start of the 1830s, the United States government began to realize it’s newfound strength and stability. It was decided that the nation had new and growing needs and aspirations, one of these being the idea of “Manifest Destiny”. Its continuous growth in population began to require much more resources and ultimately, land. The government started off as simply bargaining and persuading the Indian tribes to push west from their homeland. The Indians began to disagree and peacefully object and fight back. The United States government then felt they had no other option but to use force. In Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson on May 18, 1830. This ultimately resulted in the relocation of the Eastern tribes out west, even as far as to the edge of the Great Plains. A copy of this act is laid out for you in the book, Th...

    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

  • The Frontier as a Place of Ethnic and Religion Conflict by Patricia Nelson Limerick

    1414 Words  | 3 Pages

    "Chapter 2 Western Settlement and the Frontier." Major Problems in American History: Documents and Essays. Ed. Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman, Edward J. Blum, and Jon Gjerde. 3rd ed. Vol. II: Since 1865. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. 37-68. Print.

    Read More

  • Analysis of A People´s History of the United States

    2807 Words  | 6 Pages

    6. The Indians had been ignored in the Declaration of Independence, had not been considered equal, certainly not in choosing who would govern the American territories in which they lived, nor in being able to pursue happiness as they had before the Europeans arrived. But with the British no longer in charge, the Americans were free to push the Indians off their land and kill them if they resisted. Before the Revolution, the Indians had worked out co existence with the colonies but with the colonial population growing fast after the war, the pressure to move westward for new land was causing conflict with the Indians.

    Read More

  • The War that Never Happened: The Aroostook War

    1572 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Aroostook War never happened, but it certainly mattered. To the west, a few thousand New England militiamen walked north through Maine, some funding was appropriated, and one militiaman died of measles. To the east, New Brunswick moved some troops up the Saint John River and mobilized some local irregulars itself. Administrators of the disputed area from both sides were arrested, and confined, respectively, in Houlton and Fredericton. Fighting never broke out, and by the end of the winter of 1839, both American and colonial forces had withdrawn from the area. Daniel Webster and Lord Ashburton’s treaty in 1842 was mutually acceptable to both Britain and the United States, and by then Aroostook had faded from all but the most local newspaper headlines.

    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

  • Abraham Lincoln and Slavery

    1612 Words  | 4 Pages

    Bibliography:  Bibliography 1. John Majewski, History of the American Peoples: 1840-1920 (Dubuque: Kent/Hunt Publishing, 2001). 2.

    Read More

  • Native American Policy

    622 Words  | 2 Pages

    Beginning in the 1860s and lasting until the late 1780s, government policy towards Native Americans was aggressive and expressed zero tolerance for their presence in the West. In the last 1850s, tribal leaders and Americans were briefly able to compromise on living situations and land arrangements. Noncompliance by Americans, however, resumed conflict. The beginning of what would be called the "Indian Wars" started in Minnesota in 1862. Sioux, angered by the loss of much of their land, killed 5 white Americans. What resulted was over 1,000 deaths, of white and Native Americans. From that point on, American policy was to force Indians off of their land. American troops would force Indian tribe leaders to accept treaties taking their land from them. Protests or resistance by the Indians would result in fighting. On occasion, military troops would even lash out against peaceful Indians. Their aggression became out of control.

    Read More

  • Native American Land

    764 Words  | 2 Pages

    Prior to the 1830’s, the United States government did not make it’s aspirations of attaining Indian lands, but rather Indians were given rights to be treated as nations, and protected their rights according to the Constitution. According to the letter to President George Washington from Henry Knox, “The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war” (Doc B). To add on, the United States believed that “intrusions upon the lands of the friendly Indian tribes, is not only a violation of law, but in direct opposition to the policy for the government towards its savage neighbor” (Doc G) was considerate of the Indians’ territories. Therefore, this indicates that the government of the United States did not want to take any risk and was rather cautious against having the desire to obtain the Natives’ land.

    Read More

More about The Devastating Yakima Wars

Open Document