Tippecanoe and the Great Sign of 1811

Tecumseh's Unification of Native American Tribes at Prophet's Town

Share Article|

Jan 13, 2010 Michael Streich

The attack at Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison occurred while Tecumseh was gathering tribes in the South and left the Indian coalition shattered.

Shawnee Chief Tecumseh spent over ten years preparing a plan to unify native tribes in order to drive white settlers from the American frontier. In the absence of Tecumseh, however, the plan failed in the early hours of November 7, 1811 when William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, marched a 900 man army against Prophet’s Town on the Tippecanoe River. Although only 38 warriors died in the battle, the ensuing panic dispersed the various tribes, ending Tecumseh’s dream of a united Indian front against ever expanding white settlements.

Tecumseh and the Prophet

At Tecumseh’s birth, a sign in the heavens foretold his greatness as a leader. His name in Shawnee meant “Panther Passing Across,” given to him by his father Pucksinwah after witnessing a meteor passing in the night sky at the time of the birth. Even as a teenager, Tecumseh’s intelligence and power of oratory were noted by the chiefs. Tecumseh also possessed a singular ability: he could foretell future events.

It was Tecumseh’s younger brother, Tenskwatawa, who would be associated with prophecy, only because he was told what to say by his brother. He became known as the Prophet, taking his role more seriously as he got older. It was Tenskwatawa who stirred the gathered warriors at Tippecanoe into war frenzy, promising them that the bullets of the white army would not harm them.

The Battle at Tippecanoe River

Governor Harrison, alarmed at reports that thousands of warriors at Prophet’s Town were preparing an attack, took the offense in September 1811, marching his army toward the Indian encampment. Increased attacks on white settlements confirmed for Harrison that the Indian coalition was poised to strike.

Tecumseh, however, was in the South, visiting other tribes and pressing them to join his league. The Cherokees, Seminoles, and Lower Creeks responded to his call, as did many lesser tribes. Throughout his travels, Tecumseh promised a sign in the immediate future that would signal the moment of attack. It would be a sign like none other and confirm beyond any doubt his role as messenger of the Great Spirit.

By November 5th, Harrison’s army was within ten miles of Prophet’s Town. As Harrison advanced, the Prophet told the warriors that he had been assured, through messages from the Great Spirit, that half of Harrison’s army was already dead while the other half was insane. In their attack, they would be magically protected; no bullets would strike them. In the early hours of November 7th, they attacked, rushing forward unexposed – atypical for warriors trained to fight from cover.

Destruction of the Prophet’s Town and the Great Sign

As the demoralized warriors fled, Harrison’s army plundered the town, finding unopened cases containing British rifles. The British had been supplying the Indians with weapons and ammunition, often at no cost. The carefully constructed coalition of Shawnee, Wyandots, Senecas, Ottowas, Winnebagos, and dozens more was shattered.

The Prophet was disgraced and held in contempt by Tecumseh who returned after the disaster. The only option left was to ally with the British and Tecumseh began a new campaign to unite the tribes under the English who were more than willing to arm the tribes and pay for scalps.

The harbinger of the great sign was another fantastic streak of light, much like that at Tecumseh’s birth, on November 16th. But the sign itself began one month later, December 16th, when the first of several earthquakes and aftershocks rocked the land from the Great Lakes down to Tennessee and Kentucky. The final tremor, on February 13th, 1812, left a sea of destruction. Land disappeared, creating new lakes. According to reports of witnesses, the mighty Mississippi flowed backward for a time. The great sign convinced many tribes to join the British, just as the War of 1812 was about to start.

Sources:

• Allan W. Eckert, The Frontiersmen (Jesse Stuart Foundation, 2001)
• Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (University of Illinois Press, 1989)
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic (McGraw-Hill Book Co.)

 

Why Every Vote Counts in an Election

Jan 2, 2011 Michael Streich

In an Election Every Vote Counts - White House Photo/Pete Souza

The historical record demonstrates that close elections resulted from voter turnout which often dictated winners and losers in local and national elections.

In the election of 1884, Republican candidate James Blaine lost to Grover Cleveland because 1,149 New York voters selected the Democrat over Blaine. As one historian noted, “If 575 people had voted the other way in New York, Blaine would have become president.” In that election, 10,052,706 votes had been cast across the nation. The New York vote demonstrated that every vote in an election counts. Today, when parties talk about “getting out the vote,” they are mindful of historical elections like the 1884 campaign.

States that make a Difference in Key Elections: New York in 1884

In 1884, the “swing state” was New York. Had Blaine won the popular vote, the state’s 36 electoral votes would have made Blaine president. 401 electoral votes were in play in 1884. With New York’s 36, Blaine’s electoral vote total would have been 218 over Cleveland’s 183, more than half needed to secure the presidency. So how did Blaine lose?

Several factors caused Blaine’s loss of New York. Most specifically, Blaine failed to denounce an anti-Catholic phrase used by a Protestant minister during an October 29, 1884 campaign function in New York, days before the election. The Reverend Samuel D. Burchard referred to the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.”

Response to Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion

New York’s Irish Catholics were outraged. One of the persistent stereotypes of Irish immigrants involved drinking to excess. The reference to Romanism was an obvious slur against the Catholic religion. The bitter anti-Catholicism of the American Know-Nothing Party of the early 1850s was still a vivid reminder of religious intolerance and prejudice.

“Rebellion” was a reminder that the Democrats were responsible for the Civil War. Burchard was “waving the bloody shirt,” a common post-war tactic of Republicans. When asked by a reporter why he lost, Blaine replied, “I should have carried New York by 10,000 votes if the weather had been clear and Dr. Burchard had been doing missionary work in Asia Minor or China.”

Contested Votes and Stolen Elections in American History

One of the most significant election results of 2010 involves the write-in campaign of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski who lost the Republican primary election to Joe Miller. Miller was endorsed by Sarah Palin and received substantial support from the Tea Party Express. But Murkowski refused to admit defeat and mounted a write-in campaign.

Called a sore loser, she managed an almost impossible task and defeated Miller in the general election with more than 10,000 votes. It was an example of the political dictum that every vote counts.

In the 2000 presidential election, George Bush was declared the winner but only after appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court led to a split decision favoring Bush. The Democrat, Al Gore, actually received more popular votes than Bush. The 2000 election, decided in Florida, has often been compared to the “stolen election” of 1876.

Questions still persist regarding the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. Allegations of voter fraud in the Chicago, Illinois region as well as certain Texas precincts suggest that Nixon actually won the election, but he refused to demand a recount or an investigation into the irregularities.

The Importance of Voting on Election Day

Historical examples demonstrate the importance of voting. Many past elections might have demonstrated different outcomes if enough people avoided the argument that “my vote will not make a difference.” There are other factors that affect election results. But in the end, what matters is how the citizens vote and if they exercise their duty as citizens in a free democracy.

Sources:

• Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Charles W. Calhoun, “James G. Blaine and the Republican Party Vision,” The Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Ballard C. Campbell, editor (Scholarly Resources Inc., 2000)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era, Volume 6 (Penguin Books, 1990)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Print Article|Share Article|

DONATE

Read more at Suite101: Why Every Vote Counts in an Election http://www.suite101.com/content/why-every-vote-counts-in-an-election-a327163#ixzz1G6bIpMBA

 

The Era of Good Feeling & American Expansionism

Florida, Oregon, and the Westward Movement in the 1820s

Mar 4, 2010 Michael Streich

James Monroe's Era of Good Feeling included an aggressive campaign to annex Florida, strengthen American claims in Oregon, and promote Westward Movement.

In 1823, Francis Baylies, a member of the House of Representatives, declared in the Congress that, “…our natural boundary is the Pacific Ocean. The swelling tide of our population must and will roll on until that mighty ocean interposes its waters, and limits our territorial empire.” The period following the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 is often called the Era of Good Feeling. It was a time of disorganized growth, national prosperity, emerging materialism, and continued expansionism. The national forces that facilitated this success were driven by the unswerving belief that the United States had a special destiny.

Expansionism in the Era of Good Feeling

The expansionist views of the 1820s took their cue from the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. As the 7th Congress debated the proposition of acquiring New Orleans from France, ratified to include the entire Louisiana Territory by the 8th Congress, Georgia Senator James Jackson, seeking to include Florida, stated that, “God and nature have destined…the Floridas to belong to this great and rising empire.” (2nd Session) Jackson, representing Georgia, was more practically concerned with fugitive slaves that found refuge in Florida, but his words echoed sentiments shared by most lawmakers.

Following General Andrew Jackson’s victory at the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 – after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, the Louisiana Purchase was legitimized in the eyes of many Americans. The nation, however, fully believed that the purchase should have included Florida and Texas. This view was based on statements like the one made by Gouverneur Morris much earlier, who declared that Florida “is joined to us by the hand of the Almighty.”

Treaties and Boundary Redefinitions

By early 1819, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams concluded the Adams-Onis Treaty, which enabled the legal annexation of Florida. American settlers had already occupied Alabama, jointly claimed by Spain and the United States. Spain, in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars and independence movements throughout the Central and Southern regions of the hemisphere, cut its losses. Additionally, Andrew Jackson’s foray into Spanish Florida, deemed war-like, against the orders and wishes of President Monroe, had created a volatile situation. Only Adams supported Jackson's actions.

Separate agreements with Spain and Britain ceded Spanish claims to lands above California, not within the scope of the Louisiana Purchase and also claimed by Britain and Russia. The 1817 Rush-Bagot Treaty created the world’s longest demilitarized border between the United States and British Canada. Anglo-American agreements also provided for joint possession of Oregon, a decision that would lead to a crisis in the late 1830s highlighted by the 1840 presidential campaign slogan “fifty-four forty or fight.”

Expansionism and the Friendly Indian Tribes

The most serious threat to American expansion occurred in Florida with the resistance of indigenous Indians during the Second Seminole War. The other major southern nations, led by the Cherokee, endeavored to adopt the pastoral life, seeking an amicable accommodation that would allow them to live on their traditional lands.

Most Americans, however, refused to accept any accommodation. The example of the Black Hawk War illustrates deeply held animosities against Native Americans and a desire to purge the land of unwanted peoples. This near universal prejudice would find fulfillment in the policy of Indian Removal, decisively put into practice during the Andrew Jackson presidency and culminating in the tragic Trail of Tears. Expansionism was also exclusionary. The divinely destined mission of the Republic was limited to white, Christian America.

Geographic Predestination has no Limits

The European view of “natural boundaries,” traced back to Imperial Rome, had no place in American expansionism. Americans looked to the west, eager to trek onward to the Pacific and exploit fertile lands and bountiful natural resources. Daniel Webster once said that the port of San Francisco was more valuable than all of Texas. The March of the Flag, famously associated with later imperialism, began with the Westward Movement.

References:

• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Vol. Four (McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981)
• Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958)

Published first in Suite101 and still under copyright

Civil War Diplomacy and the Trent Affair

Lincoln's efforts to keep Britain and France out of the Civil War isolated the South and contributed to the eventual Union victory in 1865

Seward Kept England Out of the Civil War - Library of Congress Image

 immediate years after the war are often dwarfed by the conflict, but United States’ relations with Europe, notably Britain, were crucial to the ultimate success and final victory. These efforts included intensive pressure to keep Britain out of the war by minimizing any potential British diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy as well as stopping any commercial assistance to the southern states.

The Trent affair as well as the construction of the CSS Alabama, a Confederate raider, threatened to unravel the uneasy non-interference of Britain. The efforts of Secretary of State William Henry Seward and U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Charles Francis Adams proved indispensable in keeping Britain out of the conflict.

The Trent Affair of 1861 Almost Creates a War with Great Britain

In early November 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes, commanding the USS San Jacinto, overheard rumors that two special envoys representing the Confederate States of America were in Havana, Cuba, ready to board the British vessel Trent, bound for Southampton. Wilkes concluded that the ambassadors would be carrying diplomatic dispatches that might provide useful information for the Union.

Former U.S. Senators James M. Mason and John Slidell were carrying dispatches to London, although these documents were locked in a mail room once it became apparent that Wilkes meant to stop the British mail ship Trent. Dispatches were contraband if carried by the ship of a neutral nation even though ambassadors of a belligerent nation were aboard.

Captain Wilkes did not search the Trent but took Mason, Slidell, and their party aboard the San Jacinto, setting a course for Boston. While his actions turned him into an instant hero in the North, the British response was harsh. British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, demanded that the envoys be released and that the United States apologize.

Britain Threatens War and Sends Troops to Canada

Secretary of State Seward initially applauded the action, retreating from his position after it became apparent that Britain would go to war over what was considered a gross insult to the British flag. Additionally, the British upper classes harbored open sympathies with the Confederate South. The Trent affair played to those sympathies.

Britain sent 11,000 troops to Canada and instructed the governor general, Lord Monch, to activate the Canadian militia if war seemed inevitable. The British navy prepared to blockade the American coast. President Lincoln, writing that he had several sleepless nights trying to find a formula that would placate Britain without the loss of national honor, finally agreed to the release of the envoy.

Senator Charles Sumner Sways American Opinion on the Trent Affair

Charles Sumner represented the voice of reason, arguing that a war with Britain would result in the instant recognition of the rebel states by Britain. The British navy was in a position to break the Union blockade and keep the South supplied with needed war material.

In the end, Lincoln and Seward released the envoys, ending the crisis and throwing Confederate leaders into despair. Southerners viewed the Trent affair as the best circumstance to bring England into the conflict, thus assuring Confederate independence.

The Diplomatic War Between Britain and the United States

The Trent affair represented the lowest diplomatic point between Britain and the United States during the Civil War. Other pro-Southern actions by England, such as building the Confederate raider CSS Alabama, would be revisited after the war when the U.S. government insisted Britain pay for Union losses directly related to the Alabama’s actions.

Lincoln, whose experience in foreign affairs was limited, came to appreciate the importance of Anglo-American relations. Credit must also be given to Seward, Ambassador Adams in London, and the American ministers in Paris and Madrid. Keeping Europe out of the conflict was as much a Union victory as any success on the battlefield.

Sources:

• Dean B. Mahin, One War at a Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War (Brassey’s, 2000)
• James A. Rawley, editor, The American Civil War: An English View, The Writings of Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley (Stackpole Books, 2002)
• Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

William Jennings Bryan's

Cross of Gold Speech July 1896

Dec 18, 2010 Michael Streich

Cross of Gold Speech Made Bryan a National Icon - Wiki Media Commons Image/Public Domain

In 1896, William Jennings Bryan highlighted the

plight of farmers and everyday American workers in his Cross of Gold speech.

William Jennings Bryant's Cross of Gold Speech

 William Jennings Bryan was only thirty-six when he delivered his Cross of Gold speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, July 9, 1896. The issue of free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1 dominated political debates as much as the tariff issue, especially after passage of the 1890 McKinley Tariff. Farmers and working class Americans, deeply impacted by the Panic of 1890, felt cast aside by the money interests tied to politics. Bryan reminded his audience, “We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity.” The Cross of Gold speech was a drawn sword that heralded the battle between good and evil.

The Morality of William Jennings Bryan

As with many 19th Century speeches, Bryan’s Cross of Gold oration appeals to virtue and justice, using historical and biblical connections to illustrate principles. Bryan grew up in a Baptist family at a time in American history when Protestantism reflected a deep understanding of the Bible. Well educated, he worked briefly for Lyman Trumbull, a giant in Illinois politics but a man with sincere principles.

Much of this is evident in Bryan’s speech. He champions the average American worker such as “the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day,” as well as the man employed for wages and the merchant “at the crossroads store…” Bryan includes the miner who risks his life daily.

Bryan refers to Andrew Jackson several times. “What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.” Referring to Jackson’s veto of the re-chartering of the Nation Bank, Bryan compares him to Cicero, noting that, “He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.”

The Bible and History in the Cross of Gold Speech

In his first paragraph, Bryan notes that, “The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error they [the opposition] can bring.” The “armor of a righteous cause” may refer to Paul’s writings in Ephesians 6:10 which refers to putting on the “full armor of God…”

The symbolism of armor is also found in Romans 13:12 (the “armor of light”) and Jeremiah 46:3-4. In John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian is clothed with the “armor” of proof. Pilgrim’s Progress was as popular for Protestants in the 19th Century as the Bible. But Bryan also uses history, comparing the fight for silver as that “which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit…” Bryan’s example is clever; Peter the Hermit led what has been called the “People’s Crusade,” comprised of poor peasants compelled to act out of faith.

In contrasting the importance of the silver issue over the protective tariff, Bryan references 1 Samuel 18:6-9 in the Old Testament: “…if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands.” Despite the inclusion of tariff reciprocity in the 1890 tariff measure, it was ruinous to American farmers.

Conclusion of the Cross of Gold Speech Ends with the Strongest Symbol

The popular Protestant hymn, The Old Rugged Cross had not yet been written, but the symbol of the cross was a fixture in every church. Bryan ends his address boldly, asserting that, “…we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

Everyone in the audience understood the allusion to the crown of thorns and a cross of gold. The working people of America would not become scapegoats of corruption and greed. The cross of gold was, in fact, a perversion of that old rugged cross and a mockery of Christ’s sacrificial death. The plutocrats of the East were the Pilates and Chief Priests of error and injustice. This was a symbol everyone could see and understand.

American Populism and the Battle of Good Versus Evil

The Cross of Gold speech directed listeners to the looming battle for the very soul of the American people. Bryan reminded his listeners that the United States was not dependent on the policies of other nations, notably Britain. In this, he shared Jackson’s disdain of Britain’s supposed global economic power to dominate financial issues and policies.

Horatio Alger’s “rags to riches” model may have been a myth, but the fact that American freedom and prosperity was intricately tied to everyday working Americans was not. Whether farmer or factory workers, Americans were as much businessmen as the captains of industry that dominated great monopolies, the “trusts” that created wealth for less than one half of one percent of the people. All the more reason Bryan favored an income tax, as noted in his speech.

The Election of 1896 became a national referendum on good versus evil, a theme played to by both major political parties. In the end, the Republicans won decisively, painting the opposition as dangerous socialists and equating populism with all of the civil unrest, including labor strikes, anarchism, and even peaceful marches like Jacob Coxey’s.

Bryan gave his Cross of Gold speech all across the nation, while his Republican opponent, William McKinley, ran a front-porch campaign in Ohio. In the end, voters saw the election as a referendum on the capitalist system. The alternative was unthinkable in many eyes. But Bryan’s Cross of Gold, if nothing else, reminded Americans that government was by the people and of the people.

Sources:

• William Jennings Bryan, “Cross of Gold Speech,” July 9, 1896

• Paul W. Glad, McKinley, Bryan, and the People (J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964)

• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.