by Laurence M. Hauptman
Associate Professor
Department of History
State University College
New Paltz, New York
The Aboriginal Populations at Contact
Wars
The Search for New Fur Sources
Public Health
Defection
Missions
Removal: Sir William Johnson, The Iroquois Confederacy and the River Indians
Dispossession
Conclusion
Introduction
American Indians remained an integral part of the history of the Hudson
River Valley until the era of the American Revolution. Despite the intensity of warfare with the Dutch and tribal conflict with the Iroquois, sizeable Algonkian populations, collectively referred to as "River Indians," were still intact well after the fall of New Netherland in 1664 and the ending of
Mohawk-Mahican hostility in the 1670's. Over the following century, their dispersal was caused by wars; depletion of fur sources; epidemics; defections from the English side; encouragement by colonial officials, missionaries and Indian leaders to leave the area; and especially by increased frontier pressures for more and more Indian land. Although tribal identity became blurred because of cultural amalgamation of different aboriginal peoples and the spreading of trade items and Christian missions, the Indians continued to play a significant role well into the eighteenth century.
The American Indians bordering the mouth of the Hudson River and on the western side of Long Island extending up both sides of the Hudson River to the area of present day Hudson and Catskill, New York, were all Munsee Lenape (Delaware); those to the north of this point on the Hudson River were Mahican, another Algonkian-speaking group linguistically different but culturally related to the Munsee Lenape; the Indians of the Connecticut Valley belonged to a third Algonkian group; those to the south in Staten Island and New Jersey were Unami Lenape, a distinct although related group to the Munsee Lenape (Goddard 1971:14-26). The Five Nations, the Iroquois Confederacy, were west of Albany and the Hudson along the Mohawk River. The exact size of American Indian populations in 1600 in the Hudson Valley and environs is impossible to determine:
| | James Mooney's
Estimates (1928) |
Recent
Estimates (1970' s) |
| Mahican | 3,000 | 4,000-4,500 |
| Wappinger (excluding Connecticut) | 3,000 | |
| Montauk, Canarsee, etc. of Long Island | 6,000 | |
| Delaware (all Delaware villages from Delaware Bay to Esopus Creek, excluding Wappinger and Canarsee) | 8,000 | 10,000-12,000 |
| Five Nations | 5,500 | 11,000 |
In the past decade, there has been a considerable updating of aboriginal populations of the Americas at the time of contact, and consequently, James Mooney's estimates appear too low (Mooney 1928:3-4; Ubelaker 1977:248-257, 286-288; Brasser 1974:9-10; Weslager 1972:41-42, 49 17; Snyderman 1948: 38-43). (1)
The Dutch interlude, 1609-1664, contributed to the weakening of the River Indians. With the increasing Dutch desire for more agricultural lands held by the Algonkians, wars with the Indians ensued. Unlike the Five Nations, the Indian bands of the mid and lower Hudson River and Long Island were less important to the Dutch, especially after 1640 when the fur sources in their areas ran out and when European populations swelled and spilled over into Indian country. Hence it was no coincidence that the great conflicts began during Director-General Kieft's administration and continued sporadically until the fall of New Netherland in 1664. Kieft's purchase of sizeable tracts in Brooklyn and Queens in 1638-1640 from the Rockaway Indians began a new colony-wide effort to bring more land under cultivation. In addition to landownership disputes, Indian dogs, in reality semidomesticated wolves, killed European livestock and poultry. Dutch owned cows, which often wandered into the Indians' unfenced fields, grazing and trampling on the corn, further contributed to racial tensions and war.
By 1638, the Dutch West India Company began to consider the diversification of the colony's economy. Although earlier agricultural experiments had been attempted, including the much-heralded but hardly successful patroon system, only by the late 1630's had the company committed itself to the full transplanting of Dutch society. Instead of a commercial outpost extracting furs and timber, New Netherland became more heavily involved in grain agriculture. With this new emphasis, settlement was encouraged and increased eighteen fold from 1640 to 1664 (Kammen 1975:38). Consequently, tensions between the white and red worlds proportionally increased.
Governor Kieft's wars with the Indians, 1641-1645, seriously depopulated both Indian and white settlements. Swanton had estimated that Governor Kieft's War, 1641-1645, had cost the western Wappinger bands over half of its population of 3,000 (Swanton 1952:47). A more recent tabulation suggests that the war had an uneven effect, almost exterminating the Weckquaesgeek while not touching other Wappinger bands. "Perhaps twenty to twenty-five percent would approximate the reduction." (Cook 1973:11). During the two Esopus Wars, 1659-1664, no "body count" was recorded, although an Indian reported that the Dutch had killed 30 Esopus in one surprise attack on their fortification (O'Callaghan and Fernow
1856-1887:XIII:294). An undetermined number of Esopus fled during the conflicts to their Minisink brethren along the Delaware River (Weslager 1972:133). Moreover, in both Governor Kieft's War and the Esopus Wars, some Indian captives were sent to Curacao as slaves (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887:I:205-213; XIII:150-152, 155, 157, 160-169, 178-179) .
The European presence not only brought conflict between Indian and white but also amongst Indian nations. Weaponry introduced by the European and acquired through exchange for pelts created a revolution in the Indian world. The quest for more and more pelts soon reached overkill proportions. With the new European technology, the unrestrained slaughter of fur-bearing animals created great changes in Indian ecosystems. By 1640, an ecological catastrophe was at hand in New Netherland. Heavy depletion of local ecosystems created two major consequences: (1) increased dependence on European foodstuffs since traditional sources had been nearly wiped out; and (2) increased Indian-Indian rivalries that violently erupted in the so called "Beaver Wars." With the coming of the Europeans, the ancient intertribal rivalries and conflicts to acquire individual prestige or for blood revenge were replaced by wars for control of the fur trade (Hunt 1940:22; Trigger 1971: 276-286).
The Beaver Wars were the result of the introduction of firearms by the Europeans as well as the economic pressures and demands for fur by New Netherland and New France. The Europeans were not only responsible for the intensification of friction between tribes but also for changing the nature of the wars of the forest. Indian wars that had once been restricted by limited technology became transformed into "wars of extermination--total war fought for economic ends, and increasingly for ends sought by Europeans.'' (Eccles 1969:59).
In these wars, the Algonkian ranks were thinned by the Iroquois. Fifty years of sporadic fighting with the Mohawk from the 1620's through the 1670's depopulated Mahican villages and had driven some further eastward into Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Mahican were never to regain their former strength and independence of action (Brasser 1974:23; Ruttenber 1872:54-62). Although reduced in numbers, Mahicans still remained in the mid and upper Hudson River region and were to be strengthened with the incorporation of the "highland Indians, and the western Corner" Indians in 1674-1675 (Leder 1956:37). The new confederacy was composed of Housatonics, Wappingers as well as Mahicans (Brasser 1971:82).
After the fall of New Netherland, the River Indians joined in alliance with the English and participated in every major campaign through the French and Indian War. The wars with the French resulted in a high number of casualties among the River Indians although the exact number is not clear. In the expeditions against New France from 1689-1698, they suffered the most extensive casualties of any British-allied Indian contingent; out of 250 warriors, 160 were "killed and carried away." (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887:VI:337).
The decline of fur-bearing animals in the Hudson River Valley and environs was a further cause for the dispersal of the River Indians. In order to gain access to new sources of fur, Mahicans and other River tribes began to explore the Midwest in the 1660's. After the conclusion of Mohawk-Mahican hostilities, Mahicans were allowed by the Iroquois to explore the Midwest to exploit Miami and Ottawa game resources. Consequently by 1680, two bands of New England and River Indians were living among the Miami. Increasingly knowledgeable about Midwest trade routes, they participated in LaSalle's expedition down the Mississippi River in 1681-1682. Some of these River Indians finally merged with the Miami and remained in the Midwest. This trend was especially accelerated in the 1750's during the French and Indian War (Brasser 1974:24-27).
Dysentery, pleuresy, tuberculosis, typhoid, venereal disease, and yellow fever were major killers in colonial New York. Nevertheless, there was no greater threat to Indian life than smallpox. In the seventeenth century alone, the Mahicans were ravaged three times by smallpox (Brasser 1974:23). According to Adriaen Van der Donck in 1656, the disease caused a ninety percent depopulation of Indian villages in New Netherland (Van der Donck 1656:64). The years 1688 to 1692 witnessed one of the more severe smallpox epidemics among the Indians (Duffy 1951a:72-73). It disrupted the English campaign against Quebec in 1690. The English were forced to abandon their plans when their Iroquois allies became incensed after Mohegan and English soldiers appeared bearing fresh marks of smallpox. The Mohegans were actually a combined force of River Indians, most probably Mahican and Schaghticoke. The resultant deaths of 400 Iroquois and 100 Mohegan from the disease led the Iroquois to refuse any further cooperation in the expedition. The Iroquois, enraged by the careless spread of the disease, subsequently "pillaged some English people" in retaliation (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1877:IX:460-461, 490). In 1702, smallpox returned to wreak havoc in New York; Governor Cornbury reported that the disease had been carried to the River Indians (Ibid:996-997). Although there are no recorded Statistics about the epidemic of 1702 in the Hudson Valley, it has been persuasively argued that the disease in general contributed to the extirpation of American Indians on an unprecedented scale (Duffy 1951b:324-341).
Alcohol abuse was also a major health hazard. The Dutch first mentioned its use as a trade item in 1634 (Van Laer 1908:283). The liquor traffic and its attendant evils was a major reason behind the two Esopus Wars (Trelease 1960:168-169; Fried 1975:33). In 1681, a Minisink sachem complained that his Indians, coming to New York City to trade beaver for winter clothing, found instead "Rumm in every house." He added that the Indians squandered their furs and became involved in drunken orgies, resulting in 60 deaths within 3 years (Trelease 1960:190). Colonial governors gave annual warnings to the Indians about the debilitating effects of the demon run. In 1722, Governor Burnet gave the following advice to the Mahicans:
I need not tell you how destructive your intemperance has proved, and how much your people are diminished by your excessive drinking of rum, the women as well as the men being guilty of being often drunk. Let me advise you to be more sober in the future, and not to spend what you get by hunting in strong drink, and above all not squander your Indian corn for rum (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887: V: 661-662).
Admitting that it was a serious problem, the Mahican sachem replied that the Governor would be wise to prohibit the sale of rum to the Indians (Ibid:662-664).
The employment of alcohol produced debilitating and devastating effects among American Indians that persist to the present day. In addition to contributing to Indian-white conflict, it further cemented Indian dependence on the European world from the initial years of contact. In time, it led sachems "to become the most outspoken advocates of prohibition in the Indian country." According to Allen W. Trelease, "Whatever the quality of the liquor served, the Indians' weakness for it was a constant temptation to those who were willing to turn a dishonest guilder by accommodating them." (Trelease 1960:94) The defection of Indians from Schaghticoke in the early eighteenth century further illustrates the disastrous effect of alcohol among the River Indians as well as the intensity of colonial land pressures in the region.
The fate of the Schaghticoke Indians, "once numerous, powerful and faithful allies to this English government and a barrier to it on the northeast towards Canada," clearly demonstrates the major problem that American Indians faced--the expanding white settlements in the Hudson River Valley (McIlwain 1915:152n). The Schaghticoke were descendants of New England tribes, the survivors of the bloody King Philip's War. Perhaps as many as 1000 Indian refugees made their way to the Hudson Valley (Hubbard 1865:282). Many resettled in the 1670's 20 miles northeast of Albany along the Hoosic River near present day Schaghticoke at the urging of the Mahicans and at the invitation of Governor Andros. Over time, these Schaghticoke and their allied Mahican, although maintaining separate organizations, "became more or less indistinguishable in the white man's records." (Trelease 1960:235)
By 1698, the "tree of welfare" planted at Schaghticoke by Governor Andros had begun to wilt. Schaghticokes pressed by overcrowding and declining fur sources and heavily indebted to Albany traders, temporarily settled in Vermont, only to return to New York the following year (Ibid:360-361). By 1704, some became residents with other "Loups" at Missisquoi under French missionary influence (Day 1965:365-374). Within 3 years of participation in the English campaign of 1711 against Canada, the Indians remaining at Schaghticoke complained bitterly to Governor Hunter about attempts by the "Mayor and Corporation of Albany" to dispossess them (McIlwain 1915:90, 100; O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887:V:388-389). In 1721, they informed the Indian commissioners that the Albany townspeople were abusing then, selling them rum, "inticing them to drink till they are drunk and then they pawn their blankets, cloaths and jewels." (McIlwain 1915:139). Within 2 years of this appeal for relief, a sizeable contingent of Indians from Schaghticoke, presumably after overtures by the French and their Indian allies along the St. Lawrence, migrated to the "Praying" Indians at Caughnawaga (Ibid:149; Heckewelder 1819:93; Ruttenber 1872:192-194), while others sought refuge with the St. Francis Abenaki at Odanak (Charland 1964:31, 31n19). Although no numerical figures were recorded on the migrations, the frequent and formal attempts by English officials to recover these Indians suggest that many defected to the French. From November 1723 to June 1742, the English made seven separate undertakings, appealing to the remaining Indians at Schaghticoke to get their fellow tribesmen back from Canada (Moilwain 1915:149, 152, 175, 189, 196, 207, 228; O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887:V:969-970).
The English Commissioners inquired to find out the reasons for the migration, summoning to Albany the Indians who remained at Schaghticoke:
They (the Indians) say that the Christians who are settled near them have encroached upon their land and confined them to a barren spot which will not maintain them and they desire they may be allotted another part, they name which is more fruitful (McIlwain 1915:149).
The commissioners seemed to have taken "no notice of their complaint but they (Indians) are sent back with an Exhortation to endeavor to get their countrymen back." (Ibid:149) Subsequently, the officials were notified of incidents of colonists stealing Indian corn and further dispossession of the Indians (McIlwain 1915:175, 196). Only on one occasion was it reported that any Indians who had defected to Canada had returned (Ibid:228). Nevertheless, their ranks were never to be fully replenished. By the time of the French and Indian War, few Indians remained at Schaghticoke. During the conflict, they joined the French and their Indian allies in raids on the Massachusetts frontier and never returned to Schaghticoke. To one contemporary observer, the blame for the tragedy that befell these Indians belonged to the Dutch traders at Albany and environs who "have ever made an immediate temporary interest their only rule." (2) (Ibid:152nl)
Indian migrations from the Hudson Valley continued into the early 1730's when a group of Mahicans migrated to the Wyoming Valley to live with the Delaware Indians (Ruttenber 1872:194). Yet, the greatest migratory impulse in the 1730's and 1740's was furnished by Christian missionaries. Leaders in this field among the River Indians were the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (New England Company) and the Moravians. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England was instrumental in establishing the Stockbridge mission, one of the most famous Christian Indian communities in colonial America and one that has received much historical attention. (3) From April 1736 onward, the Reverend John Sergeant attracted steadily increasing numbers of Mahicans, Wappingers and Housatonics to his Stockbridge, Massachusetts mission. By 1749, nearly 218 Indians had been resettled and the fireplace of the Mahican Nation had apparently shifted from the Hudson River to the mission (Brasser 1974:34-35). Sergeant saw the need to promote Indian self-sufficiency by introducing European agricultural methods and to tie the Indians to the British interest at a time when the British were in need of Indian allies.
Although there were serious attempts to instruct and preach in the Indian languages and to teach craft skills, within 50 years of its founding, the Stockbridge experiment came to an end. Land allotment, white land pressures and Indian population decline precipitated the collapse of the mission. Stockbridge Indians settled among the Oneida in 1785 and were subsequently removed with them to Wisconsin in the 1820's (Brasser 1971:82-83).
Less well-known and less explored historically than Stockbridge, the Moravian missions of the Oblong Valley straddling the New York-Connecticut-Massachusetts border offer unexplored clues to the fate of the American Indians of the Hudson River and environs. (4) The missions, especially Shekomeko, illustrate the Herculean problems of protecting the Indians from the encroachment of frontier expansion in the 1740's.
In August, 1740, Christian Henry Rauch was sent by the Moravians as a missionary to the Mahicans of the area. Surviving the alcoholic rages of the Indians, the persistent missionary successfully converted two of their sachems. The converts brought him to Shekomeko, near present day Pine Plains, New York, where Rauch established his mission. Besides Christianity, industrial education and European craft skills were introduced. Within a short time, other Moravians joined Rauch in rehabilitation work establishing a series of missions throughout the Oblong Valley.
Despite their apparent success with the Indians, the Moravians were fighting a losing battle. Among their many and assorted critics were jealous Congregational clergy, land-grabbers and rum sellers. Scores of English on the Dutchess County-Connecticut frontier began to view the Moravians, men of alien tongue who refused to swear oaths of allegiance or to take up arms against the French, as Papist traitors. Others claimed they were secretly hoarding weapons and/or gun-running for the French, conspiring with the Indians to sell out the Pennsylvania colony. On September 21, 1744, the New York Assembly passed a law prohibiting "all vagrants, Moravians, and other suspicious persons" from teaching the Indians or preaching in the colony; the act also specified their removal from the oolony to be enforced by the local sheriffs. Desirous of Indian land, the persecution went as far as offering Indians liquor in exchange for missionaries' lives! (Heckewlder 1820:Chapter II)
In the waning months of 1744, the Moravian missionaries were forcibly brought before magistrates in New Milford, Poughkeepsie, Filkentown and Rheinbeck. Eventually, because of the efforts of the Moravian leader Count Zinzendorf, the missionaries were finally allowed to return to the Mahicans to "live according to their religious tenets." (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1849-1851:III:1012-1027) With the death of their senior missionary in the region, and the continued harassment by neighboring whites, the Moravians decided to abandon Shekomeko in 1746. Other Moravian Indian missions in the Oblong Valley were abandoned during the early years of the French and Indian War. In spite of an order prohibiting their migration, more than a hundred Mahicans followed their teachers into exile, settling at missions at Friedenshutten, Gnadenhutten, Shamokin and Maniolagomekah, Pennsylvania (Heckewelder 1820: Chapter II).
The River Indians increasingly came under the sway of English colonial authorities into the eighteenth century. As satellites of the provincial government, these Indian tribes were encouraged to migrate to the villages of the Six Nations to build up an English-Iroquois defense perimeter against the French. As early as 1722, River Indians had already settled among the newly-arrived Tuscarora along the Susquehanna River (Ruttenber 1872:200-201). In 1753, the Reverend Gideon Hawley began a mission in Iroquois country near present day Binghamton. The remnants of River tribes settled nearby at Colleton and Alheepens, establishing themselves as successful farmers with well-built houses, schools and churches.
It is clear that the Iroquois were not directly responsible for the dispersal of the Indians of the Hudson River. Rapid land settlement in the Hudson Valley in the eighteenth century combined with paranoiac fears of Indians living within the midst of colonial settlements and allegedly operating against the English crown led New York authorities to move sizeable numbers of Indians out of the area. As early as December, 1755, Sir William Johnson had suggested that the River Indians move from the "back settlement, where they might be taken for enemies and destroyed" to the protection of the towns. At Walden, colonists killed 9 Indians--4 men, 3 Women and 2 children (Ruttenber 1872: 230).
On March 10, 1756, an incident occurred at Kingston which contributed directly to Johnson's removal of the River Indians. A party of English entered a wigwam in search of the murderers of some of their neighbors. Fearing for their lives, the Indians resisted their efforts, killing several of the Englishmen and making their escape. Subsequently, "Colonel Hardenbergh and several other gentlemen of Kingston" wrote to Johnson asking him what to do with the "40 or 50 of the same Nation of Indians" that remained in that city. Johnson then approached the Mohawks about his dilemma. Three days later, the Mohawks accepted responsibility for these unfortunate victims of war and agreed to go to Esopus country to persuade the River Indians to relocate at the Mohawk's "lower castle" in the Schoharie. Johnson thanked the Mohawks, promised to supply them with provisions and an interpreter en route and assuaged any fears by affirming that he would support and clothe the River Indians until they could provide for themselves (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887:VII:94, 96, 99-100). Upon their arrival at Fort Johnson in April, May, and July, 1756, Johnson assured the River tribesmen that their Mohawk "Uncles" would protect them as long as the Indians behaved themselves, were sober and industrious, and were faithful to the King of England by joining the Mohawk efforts in fighting the French (O'Callaghan and Fernow 1856-1887:VII:113, 152, 159). Behind Johnson's intentions appeared to be the strengthening of his faithful Mohawk allies. His correspondence clearly indicate his motive to build his British-allied Indian forces in the already intensifying French and Indian War (Sullivan et al. 1921-1966:IX:424-425, 434-435, 440, 463-467, 470).
Johnson carefully carried out this and subsequent removals from the Hudson Valley. In a letter to the Magistrates at Fishkill, he insisted upon smooth, orderly and law-abiding removals. Consequently, a total of 196 River tribesmen reached Fort Johnson on July 9, 1756. Johnson outfitted them with clothes, paint and ammunition and assigned them to lands at Otseningo under the watchful eyes of the Senecas (Ruttenber 1872:231).
Johnson continued his role as the "Great White Father." In February, 1764, Esopus Indians at Otseningo indicated that they were "happily seated" and offered the remaining 56 square mile tract of their former lands to Johnson; refusing graciously, he gave fatherly advice about the wisdom of disposing of assets for advantage. On May 5, 1764, Tuscaroras came before Johnson on behalf of their friends the Esopus asking him to assist in bringing more Esopus to Otseningo. Johnson's interest in the River tribes continued, and 4 years later, another sizeable migration of Catskill and Esopus Indians was apparently under way (Sullivan et al. 1921-1966:VII:394-395; XI:62, 67, 188; XII:718-719, 734, 802).
Unfortunately for the Indians relocated in Iroquois country, British-allied Mohawks and Senecas began to use their settlements along the upper Susquehanna River as a base of operations during the American Revolution. The River Indians, whether 'innocent or guilty of aiding the British cause, suffered the fury of the colonists' reprisals when the continental army burned their villages in October, 1778. Some fled to their Delaware relatives southward in Pennsylvania; others made their way northward to the villages of
the Oneida, and, were subsequently removed with them to Wisconsin in the 1820's; while still others joined Joseph Brant during the latter part of the war, following the Mohawk leader to Canada (Scott & Baker 1953:271-272; Ruttenber 1872:272n7, 277).
Many instances of outright land frauds occurred in the history of Indian-white relations along the Hudson River. The last major dispossession of River Indians involved the Wappingers in the 1760's. In the 1690's, Adolphe Philipse, a wealthy New York Dutch merchant with roots in the colonial aristocracy, acquired a tract of land on the east bank of the Hudson from Jan Sebering and Lambert Dorlandt. These two men had obtained a license to purchase the land from the Wappingers. Sebering and Dorlandt had never fulfilled the conditions of their license since they did not secure a patent from the royal governor. On.June 17, 1697, Governor Fletcher granted Philipse an after-the-fact patent for 205,000 acres in southern Dutchess County, now Putnam County, for both the original Severing-Dormancy tract and Phil ipse's later extension. Phil ipse's seems to have been aware of the tenuous legality of both his original purchase and the Governor's subsequent extension. Under mysterious and suspicious circumstances, he attempted to increase his landholding s and secure Indian approval of his highly dubious actions. In 1702, Philipse, neglecting to obtain a license to purchase:additional lands, bought additional land from a small group of Indians, in what has been referred to as the Robinson Indian deed. By the 1760's Adolphe Philipse's grandnephew Philip Philipse and three grandnieces Susanna Robinson, Mary Morris and Margaret Philipse had inherited the lands as we11 as the controversy (Nammack 1969:70-72; MacCracken 1956:266-299; Handlin 1937:50-75).
Beginning in July 1762, Daniel Nlmham, a Wappinger sachem, attempted to assert Indian rights to the disputed lands (Handlin and Mark 1964:193-246). Hiring able attorneys, the Wappinger presented an articulate case which eventually was appealed to the Board of Trade in London (Sullivan et al. 1921-1966:XI:630-631; XII:97-98). The, case turned on the validity of three documents: the purchase of the original Indian title, the Fletcher patent of 1697 and the Robinson Indian deed of 1702. Despite the perseverance of the Indians and their attorneys and the tenuous claims of the Philipse family, they were working against formidable odds. The New York Oouncil, composed of the colony's landed interests, understood all the ramifications of the situation. The settlement of the Hudson Valley had been accomplished with much dishonesty and graft. If the Philipse patent had been overturned and Indian title recognized, the whole land pattern of the colony would have been jeopardized and the volatile landlord--tenant relationship in the region would have become more unstable. In addition, the migration of New Englanders into the area also complicated matters. Yankees from the Connecticut Valley were securing Indian deeds and were squatting on the disputed lands. The Indians also had to contend with Sir William Johnson who expressed a total lack of support for the Wappinger cause. In Machiavellian fashion, the Mohawk Baronet was clear in his leanings in the matter:
I have laid it down as an invariable rule from which I never did nor shall deviate, that wherever a title is set up by any tribe of Indians of little consequence or importance to his Majesty's interest, and who may be considered as long domesticated, that such claim unless apparently clear, had better remain unsupported than that several old titles of his Majesty's subjects should thereby become disturbed (Sullivan et al. 1921-19-6 :XI:911-912).
Consequently, all the provincial authorities, including the Governor and his Council rejected the Wappinger appeal. Nimham then journeyed to England to plead his case. The Board of Trade heard the Wappinger's plea and recommended through the Earl of Shelburne that Johnson rectify the situation (Nammack 1969:78-79). A new hearing before the New York Council was ordered for January, 1767. The Indians once again maintained that the Philipse patent was illegal and denied that the lands were ever purchased by an approved license. In March 1767, the New York Council and the Governor unanimously decided that the Indians had no right, title or claim to the Philipse patent, that it belonged to Philipse's heirs, and accordingly dismissed the case. According to a recent historian of the Wappinger dispossession:
It demonstrates that the Indians, especially those of smaller tribes, had little chance to obtain full justice in the colonies, even when they had competent, qualified legal assistance and followed the established method of letting the law decide the merits of a case. The law seems to have been on the side of the colonists, although the Lords of Trade had made an attempt to obtain justice for the Indians. The development of imperial land policy shows that the home government was largely frustrated in its attempts to protect the natives (Nammack 1969: 85).
After the final verdict, the Wappingers left the Hudson River region permanently, removing themselves to Stockbridge Mission. They supported the colonists' side in the American Revolution, fighting against the British in Canada, at the siege of Boston and in later campaigns in New York and Pennsylvania (MacCracken 1956:299). Stockbridge, Mahican and Wappinger excelled in the campaigns of 1777 and 1778; however, in August, 1778, at Cortland's Ridge at Yonkers, their ranks were decimated. Nearly 40 of 60 warriors, including Nimham himself, were killed (Ruttenber 1872:287). In gratitude for their participation, General Washington wrote to Congress about their meritorious service (Fitzpatrick 1937:XX: 44-45).
Wars, depletion of fur sources, and epidemics had weakened and depopulated the Indians of the Hudson River. The umbrella of protection extended by colonial officials, missionaries, Iroquois and Delaware prompted migrations. Nevertheless, frontier expansion in the Hudson Valley was the major reason for the dispossession and subsequent migrations of American Indians from the area. White land encroachment caused dispersal as seen in the Dutch Wars, 1641-1664, the Schaghticoke defection of the 1720's, the persecution of Moravian and Mahican at Shekomeko in the 1740's, and finally, in the legal proceedings involving the Wappingers in the 1760's. (5)
|