Telling New Stories

1. What were the two versions of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S. public, and who supported each view?

Version One of the Event:

The settlers and O’odham involved were hailed as heroes by many newspapers. The group said that they were simply retaliating for stolen cattle and a few dead settlers, whom the Apache had supposedly killed.

Who supported Version One?

This version, the “Camp Grant Affair”, was supported by the local western settlers, including the Mexican-Americans, and the O’odham people.


Version Two of the Event:

This view was from the perspective of Lieutenant Whitman of the U.S. Army, and the commander of Camp Grant. He said it was an unjustified attack from the settlers, and an slaughter of innocent women and children.

Who supported Version Two?

This view was supported by the U.S. government and reformers throughout the country. They began to call it the “Camp Grant Massacre.”

2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant?

After months and months of pressure, officials in the Camp Grant area put the leaders of the Camp Grant Attack on trial. This was the first time ever that a non-Apache was arrested for killing an Apache. However, only representatives from the U.S. government, Mexican-American settlers, U.S. settlers, and one O’odham testified. With no view from the Apache standpoint, the defendants were acquitted.

3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States?

Anglo-Americans were able to contact newspapers throughout the country; they could get their side of the story to the outside world very easily. Mexican-Americans, Apache, and the O’odham, on the other hand, were essentially cut off from the rest of the country. Therefore, in every part of the country, everyone heard the side of the Anglo-Americans and never the perspective of the Mexican-Americans, Apache, or O’odham.  

4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States?

In the telling of the story of westward expansion, the Anglo-Americans wanted to portray themselves in the most positive light possible. This was easy for them, since they were the dominant people throughout the United States. Since most interactions with Native Americans would put a negative shade on the account of westward expansion, often these stories just weren’t told. Native Americans were completely omitted from many accounts.

5. What were the two parts of the U.S. government's assimilation plan in the late nineteenth century?

a. Pack all of the Indians onto tight, barren lands under U.S. control. The government wanted them in high concentration so they could


b. erase their culture completely. They wanted them to be Christian, speak English and farm on small independent lands. Once this was achieved, they could become a normal part of American society.


6. Give two examples of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures?


a. Indians were banned from practicing their own religion and cultural ceremonies on the reservation. This was a way of integrating Christianity rather than their individual religions.


b. Thousands of Indian children were sent to boarding schools and forced to act like American children, with short hair and speaking English. This was a way of getting rid of their Indian culture early, so that they could make normal citizens within a generation.


7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West?

With the advent of the transcontinental railroad, Americans had the ability to make larger towns and some cities, rather than settling in small pockets of the desert. They were able to get supplies from the eastern factories, and were able to send back the minerals they mined and make money more easily of their mining ventures. As a result of it becoming more profitable to live out west, the U.S. had to take even more of the Indians land and force them onto reservations in an even more violent manner.

8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization?

As more and more people moved west on the railroads, more materials were being mined by them. These materials were being sent back to the growing factories in Eastern cities. Food farmed in the west was being sent to the East as well as Europe, and eventually these two areas became dependent on this food. This availability of goods spurred rapid growth of the United States economy and encouraged industrialization.

Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona - Part II

6. What two threats did Mexico face in its northern frontier in the mid-nineteenth century?

a. The people in northern Mexico faced renewed conflicts and fights with the Apache and O’odham people.

b. These people also faced the U.S.A., which was eager to expand into their territory.

7. Why did the Gadsden Purchase have such a great impact on northern Mexicans?

When the U.S. bought the piece of land in northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase, they were buying the land where many major northern Mexican cities and towns were on. This led the people living in these cities to feel very betrayed by their own government. Although not immediate, in the next few decades they had to learn to adapt to life in the U.S..

8. List two ways that cultural misunderstanding contributed to a growing conflict between U.S. settlers
and Apache groups.

a. When U.S. settlers began to move into the land acquired in the Gadsden Purchase, they were quick to make peace agreements with Apache groups. However, when they made an agreement, they assumed it was with all the Apache groups in the area. So, when other groups raided them, they got angry at the group with whom they had made peace agreements.

b. The second misunderstanding has to do with raiding as well. When the Apache raided the U.S., they assumed it was a malicious attack. In fact, it did not become malicious until the U.S. started retaliating. Before that, raiding was a key source of supplies for the Apache, and the U.S. did not understand this.


9. How did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase spark a civil war in...

a. Mexico- Many Mexicans were disgraced by the territory losses in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase.  Most of these Mexicans blamed the losses on Mexico’s government and bad leadership, and argued that this and the economy and society needed a complete overhaul. At the end of a brutal Civil War, this goal was achieved.

b. the United States- The U.S.A. on the other hand, was gaining territory very quickly. However, this created an argument in the congress about whether or not these new states should be admitted into the Union as free or slave states. This bitter argument finally exploded in the form of a Civil War.


10. a. What did many U.S. settlers want U.S. policy towards the Apache to be?

Many U.S. settlers wanted the Apache to be punished for their deeds against America. They thought the most suitable method to punish them was through very violent means, such as war with all Apache. Some settlers even advocated extermination.

b. In what ways did this clash with the federal government’s Peace Policy?

The Peace Policy gave support and assistance to the Apache in exchange for them moving onto a set reservation called Fort Apache. The settlers in the area argued that they were not being punished enough for their actions, rather it seemed like they were being rewarded.

11. Why were the Apache hesitant to move onto reservations?

By nature, the Apache were migrant people. They moved according to the seasons and where the good hunting was. Putting them on a reservation did not fit their lifestyle. Many Apache also believed that this was just more U.S. treachery. They had heard stories of brutal wars with the Navajo people in New Mexico as the U.S. attempted to move them onto reservations, and thought that the Peace Policy might just be another excuse to kill many Apache that did not move onto the reservation.

Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona

1. What were the two broad groupings of Native Americans in southern Arizona when the Spanish arrived?

Broad Group 1   Name for Self: O’odham                  Spanish Name(s): Pima and Papago

Broad Group 2   Name for self: Nnee                   Spanish Name(s): Apache

2. How did the O’odham show their unwillingness to fully embrace the Spanish missions?

While initially many of the O’odham accepted the missionaries because they brought them food and livestock, eventually their efforts to make the O’odham stop practicing their religion became overwhelming. At this point many O’odham moved to the desert and only interacted with the Spanish in times of dire need or during migration.

3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?

The Apache lived in much smaller and more dispersed groups than the O’odham; therefore they had much less contact with the new Spanish goods, such as food and livestock, that came along the trade routes. As a result, when the Spanish settlers moved north, the Apache turned to raiding Spanish settlements to get supplies, particularly horses.

4. What was the cycle of violence?

When an Apache tribe raided a Spanish settlement, the Spanish might take advantage of the rivalry between the O’odham and Apache and supply the O’odham with the means to attack the Apache.  The O’odham would capture some Apache women and Children, whom the Indians would buy as slaves. The Apache would then attack the O’odham on Spanish missions, taking O’odham and Spanish captives hoping to trade for their own people. This would spark another attack by the Spanish and O’odham, and so the cycle went.

5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ?

The Spanish view of the establicimientos de paz was that they were a grand and good force ushering in a wonderful age of peace to this hostile land. The Apache view was hardly related to peace. They saw it as an obligation between two groups, one side, the Apache, giving military aide, and the other side, the Spanish, giving supplies. This exchange was the reason of peace for the Apache, not the Spanish.

New Settlers in the West

1. Read pages 10 - 18  List three reasons why people in the United States moved west.

a. The land in the east had very poor soil, and many people wanted to establish farms to make a living. These people moved out west for the farmland, as well as the forests for timber and mineral resources in the mountains. They were followed by doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. to establish towns.

b. The population in the United States had more than doubled in forty years, from 7.25 million to 23 million. The crowding in cities led people to move west. Also, a lot of this growth was European immigrants looking to make a life for themselves in the Western frontier of America, so this contributed to the expansion as well. 

c. For some Americans, the West was a place where they could establish their own government, completely free of the discrimination of the Eastern policies. The Mormons migrated to Utah for religious freedom, whereas many former slaves moved west because at first it was a safe haven for blacks. This changed when more and more Anglo-Americans moved from the south, however. As part of this social freedom, Wyoming gave women the right to vote, which encouraged many women to move west as well.

2. How did westward expansion contribute to sectional tensions in the United States?

                 

             As more and more people moved west, groups in the Louisiana Territory began applying for statehood. This brought up the question of whether or not these new states would be slave states or not. By this time, most states in the north had emancipated slavery, while the south relied on slavery for their economy. There had always been a balance in the senate, an even number of slave and free states. States recognized that if these new states entered the union on their side of the argument, they could advance their agendas much more easily. The north and south fought often on the subject. In 1819, Missouri applied for statehood as a slave state. The north was worried, because this would upset the balance of eleven slave and free states in the senate. Eventually, with the help of Henry Clay, an act was passed admitting Missouri as a slave state at the same time as Maine being introduced as a free state. This was only a temporary fix however, as more people were moving west, so this argument would be brought up again and again, continuing to build tensions.

3. What was the Peace Policy?

                

                The Peace Policy was a policy introduced by Ulysses S. Grant reassessing the opinions of the U.S. towards Native Americans. The policy was responsible for putting Indians on reservations, where they would be instructed by religious leaders on English, U.S. farming methods, and Christianity. All Indians not in the reservations would be considered hostile by the U.S. government. Essentially, the Peace Policy was another attempt and at the pacification and assimilation of Indians.  

Indian Removal Act

1. Read pages 10 - 12 (Stop at "Settlers Move West"). Why did the United States fight or negotiate with dozens of Indian groups for the lands in the Louisiana Territory?

In the 19^th century United States, the population was growing so incredibly fast that there wasn’t enough land for everyone. The majority of this population was farmers that wanted to move into the newly acquired Louisiana Territory. However, there were many Indian tribes still living in this territory. The new American settlers considered themselves superior to the Indians; therefore they could force them out of their land.

2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?                                                                   

The Cherokees responded very positively to the U.S. efforts of assimilation. The Cherokee decided to create a united nation with a constitution and government inspired by the United States. They participated in the farming economy of the south. They made plantations with African slaves to grow the very profitable crop, cotton. In 1827, they even declared themselves independent to the United States.

The Transformation of a Continent

1. Read pages 1 - 2. How does the term "the West" mask the different perspectives of people at the start of the nineteenth century? (Keep in mind the discussion at the beginning of class today - "Eastward Expansion")

The term “the West” only refers to the perspective of American Easterners. However, many other countries referred to it differently. The Russians called it the East, while the Spanish in South and Central America referred to it as el Norte, meaning the north. To the people actually living on the land everyone wanted, American Indians, direction didn’t matter. It had never been a concern to them before. The term “the West” only represents America’s viewpoint, and because we are the ones who eventually conquered this land, other perspectives have been lost.

2. Read page 5. Summarize the three major areas of differences and misunderstandings between the Europeans and Native Americans.

Trade: The idea of trade in Indian culture had previously been thought of as similar to gift giving, whereas the Europeans saw it as a method of profit. They eventually instilled this idea in the American Indians, who depleted their resources more so that they would have enough to trade with the  Europeans for items they had now become dependent on, such as cloth, tools, guns, alcohol, and horses.

Land: Before the Europeans, particularly the British, the Native Americans knew of owning land, but not in the same way. They had claims to land based on the fact that their ancestors had lived there, or for other cultural reasons. The Europeans brought with them the idea of being able to buy and sell land, a totally foreign concept that the Native Americans had to adjust too.

Treaties: One core misunderstanding that arose from treaties is the fact that the Europeans thought of the “Indians” as one whole group, one unified nation of people. They did not care that there were thousands of tribes, so when an Indian group signed a treaty thinking it only applied to their community, the Europeans applied it to all the surrounding communities. The American Indians also had no writing system, and most things in their society were based on spoken word, such as history and, before the Europeans, treaties. The Europeans often twisted what had actually been negotiated in their favor when it came time to write it down.


3. Read pages 3 - 7 (stop at U.S. Westward Expansion). How did the arrival of Europeans transform life in the West? (Feel free to bullet point your answer. But use lots of key details!)

                The majority of changes caused by Europeans in Indian society stemmed from horses, guns, and disease. Many tribes relied on hunting wild game for their food and pelts to trade. With horses their hunting became much more efficient. Even the agricultural tribes benefited from horses, as it made it easier to get farming supplies from far off settlements. Some hunting tribes became nomadic, following the buffalo that was their food source. The ease of trade caused by horses brought in more changes to Indian culture. Religion was often brought along these routes as well. The Europeans also brought many diseases to the Native Americans along these routes, killing thousands in epidemics. Guns were brought along these routes too, as with transportation being made easy by horses, more tribes laid claim to larger plots of land. Conflicts in between tribes, or with European settlers, became much bloodier and more dangerous as guns were introduced. Some tribes didn’t clash with the Europeans, in fact, some allied themselves with settlers so they could attack rival tribes. The Europeans gained increased trade through these alliances. Some Indians raided European colonies to get livestock, guns, and other goods.  In general, Indians adapted very well to Europeans invading their land. In some cases, such as the Pueblos in New Mexico, they rebelled against certain cultural ideals that did not line up with their own.  The majority of Native Americans were able to expertly integrate European culture with theirs, excluding the things they did not agree with.

4. Read pages 7 - 10. In a paragraph, explain this sentence from the reading (which is the first paragraph under the heading of "US Westward expansion."): "The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself."

                

           When the United States of America declared its independence from Britain in 1776, the founding fathers wrote the words “all men are created equal” as one of the truths that is necessary to a government. A few decades later, when it came time to fulfill our “manifest destiny” the meaning of this phrase became a bit blurred. We Americans wanted the land that the Native Americans had. Officially, we owned all the land to the Rocky Mountains after the Louisiana Purchase. However, this was not enough motivation for the American Indians to leave. We decided that as Anglo Americans, we were a superior race and had a right to move them by force, killing thousands in the process. It seemed that because America wanted the land, because of our “manifest destiny”, we were willing to ignore one of the key rights listed in our founding documents.