Slavery, Native Americans, and U.S. Political Leaders from 1760–1860

The period of 1760–1840 was a period of turmoil and transition as the British colonies gained independence and the expansion of white settlers to the western regions of North American began in earnest. The 18th century in North America saw the shifting of European powers and presence in North America, while the first half of the 19th century oversaw a continent that was forming its own unique identity in relation to itself and to the original inhabitants of the area. The history of the United States during this period was affected by economic growth and expansion aided by African slavery, an increasingly bellicose relationship with Native Americans, and the leadership of a few great individuals.

Slavery’s role in developing the economy and fortune of the United States cannot be understated. The southern colonies especially benefitted from slavery. However, as questions of governance began to emerge between the colonies and British government, the idea of slavery as an institution began to change under political consideration. Lord Dunmore, governor Virginia, proclaimed all slaves who fought for the British would be freed, and though Roark et al. explain it was a ruse, the idea connecting the British to freedom gained popularity (150). Obviously the campaign to recruit slaves as soldiers did not succeed for the British, but slavery was no longer seen as an permanent condition. Furthermore, the time right before the Revolution prompted a mass exodus of slaves to allow some groups to settle in Canada and in Africa (Roark et al. 151). As Roark notes, “after 1776, the ideals of the Revolution about natural equality and liberty began to erode the institution of slavery” (187). While the petitions of most slaves against the state and federal governments that kept them in bondage met without success, northern states were gradually beginning to adopt changes to grant freedom to slaves, and it began in the north, where slaves engaged in politics without the harsh reprisals they would see in the South. Economically, slaves were important to the recovery and expansion of the economy following the Revolutionary War. Being mostly cheap or free labor meant slaves were immensely profitable, and their work was augmented by technological innovations, such as the cotton gin, invented in 1793 (Roark et al. 225). The economic boon provided by slavery no doubt made further exploration and expansion westward possible, creating wealth that helped build infrastructure to the country.

By 1830, the state of the institution of slavery was facing significant internal pressure from the abolitionist movement (Roark et al. 268). The concentration of the movement was found in the North, particularly among the states that had recently abolished slavery, such as Massachusetts. This created more tension between North and South, further creating rifts in ideology and culture that would eventually lead to one reason for the Civil War. For now, however, the abolitionist movement remained a source of unease for white slave-owners, particularly those in the South. It also gave slaves more rhetoric upon which to call into question their condition. Slavery became part of the political and social debate during the 19th century in a way that it hadn’t been during the 18th, and yet it was a reason why the economy recovered as quickly as it did, allowing for growth.

For Native Americans, the middle of the 18th century marked the beginning of the end in terms of their sovereignty and free occupation of North America. Beginning with the French and Indian War, British (later, American) colonists began to systematically suppress and nullify Native American claims on the land and their influence in shaping its destiny (except, perhaps, in the tragedy of their struggle as a lesson to future generations). The British colonial government bungled the Albany Plan, failing to enlist Native American support against the French, creating an overall relationship of either neutrality or hostility between Native Americans and British colonists (Roark et al. 133–134). Once France—the last European ally the Indians had—was removed as an inhibitor to British growth, relationships between Native Americans and the British government were further complicated, with cultural misunderstanding and bigoted views preventing understanding between British liaisons to Native Americans who viewed Native Americans as an inferior people but were still able to enlist many tribes to their aid to fight the colonial rebels, though different tribes fought one another as there were pro-American tribes as well (Roark et al. 167–168). Many Native Americans saw what independence would bring to the colonies—expansion—and so Native American warfare during the Revolutionary War was most intense along the colonies’ western borders. George Washington led attacks against Indians, looking “to wreak ‘total destruction and devastation’” against Native Americans (Roark et al. 171). This experience would no doubt color the official government attitude toward Native Americans in the years to come after Washington was elected President.

As the new American country expanded, the need or land pushed settlers west into conflict with Native Americans who were more resolute to stop American expansion. The 1791 defeat of American forces under Arthur St. Claire was a spectacular victory for Native Americans in their conflict against the United States, and it would soon bring the attention and reinforced might of the United States military, which pushed Native Americans out of Ohio with the treaty of Greenville in 1795 (Roark et al. 216–217). The pattern of encroachment by white settlers and retreat by Native Americans continued until the British and American War of 1812, which might also be called “Tecumseh’s Rebellion.” Tecumseh, the Shawnee chief who would become a magnet for Native American unification after the Revolutionary War, who rekindled relationships with the British who were now in Canada. As Roark et al. explain, “When war came in 1812, the enemy was Britain, bolstered by a reenergized Indian-British alliance. …[T]he war… derived compelling strength from Tecumseh’s confederacy” (228). However, Tecumseh’s confederacy was unable to overcome, and Indian removal continued as white settlers pushed west.

The worst treatment of Native Americans was yet to come under the presidency of Andrew Jackson, who convinced Congress to pursue the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which basically pursued a policy of genocide as Jackson, quoted in Roark, proclaimed, “[Native Americans] have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential… they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear” (261). Indeed, the high periods of warfare that included the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812 kept Native Americans engaged in conflict and that “from the Indians’ point of view, the Seven Years’ War could be called the Sixty-One Years’ War” (Roark et al. 137).

During the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th, leaders were needed for the nascent and fragile United States. Obviously George Washington comes to mind quickly, the first President of the United States who had a distinguished military career that helped the United States emancipate itself from British rule. Roark describes Washington as shrewd, explaining that Washington’s entry into military life also included a publication of his journal in 1732 that brought him into the public consciousness (132). Washington as a military commander produced mixed results, with his first skirmishes with the French ending without overwhelming victories (Roark et al. 133). Washington was a military man, showing a sternness to the undisciplined troops of the Continental Army (Roark et al. 158). He was also bigoted in his attitude toward blacks and Native Americans, though that was not uncommon at the time, especially among Virginians. And, as Roark points out, “He was not a brilliant thinker or a shrewd political strategist. He was not even a particularly congenial man. In the political language of the day, he was ‘virtuous,’ meaning that he took pains to elevate the public good over private interest and projected honesty and honor over ambition” (207). As President, Washington understood he was making history with each action, and he was careful to meet public expectations for the high office while also allowing the prototype government to work out its kinks, making him good at being a figurehead at a time when being a good figurehead was crucial.

Alexander Hamilton, in contrast, was more polarizing, responsible for the formation of political parties, which Roark states was “an unhappy development” at the time (206). Roark described Hamilton as “both visionary and practical” (206). Described as affable and congenial, it is no wonder that Hamilton charmed people and rose in power. He understood the need of a prospering economy and understood how that could be achieved through industry, setting him apart from people such as John Adams who favored a more populous and agrarian approach (Roark et al. 206). As a visionary, Hamilton understood the importance of a creditworthy nation (Roark et al. 214), showing his commitment to the nation in decades or centuries of growth, not just focusing on the immediate problems. However, his vision and doggedness eventually proved his downfall, creating partisanship and earning him enemies who hated him with such passion as to cause one, Aaron Burr, to challenge Hamilton to a duel and mortally wound him (Roark et al. 230).

Finally, there is Andrew Jackson, a war hero-turned-President who presided over a nation that was looking at unprecedented expansion. Jackson was a contrast to the “learned and privileged gentlemen from Virginia and Massachusetts,” and he had a broad appeal as a popular hero and common man (Roark et al. 251). He was combative, a trait which helped him expand the powers of his office (Roark et al. 252). He was the embodiment of the new American spirit, a spirit of decisive action and in forging a new destiny. The biggest obstacle to Jackson’s plan outside of politics was the Native American presence. Jackson’s solution to this problem was brutal and borderline genocidal as he implemented a massive relocation program for Native Americans (Roark et al. 261). As popular as Jackson was for the citizens of the United States, he was the downfall for many of the original people of North America.

The period of time right before the Revolutionary War and the Civil War was a period of discovering identity, growing, and experimenting with a new form of government in a land abundant with resources. Men such as Washington, Hamilton, and Jackson forged a political system and a shaped a government that relied upon and questioned the institution of slavery and oversaw the systematic weakening and relocation of Native Americans from land being claimed and settled by an optimistic and individualistic new nation.

Work Cited

Roark, James L., et al. The American Promise: A Compact History, Volume 1: to 1877. 4th ed. New York: Bedford Martin, 2010.