A replica of an original copy of the Declaration of Independence is on display at the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul for the next two weeks.
MPR’s Midmorning show today featured two experts talking about "… how understanding of the document evolved over time."
I didn’t catch the first 30 minutes but submitted this question to the show via MPR’s Send a Question feature. It didn’t get used, as they probably ran out of time.
What’s the background on the inclusion of the phrase "the merciless Indian savages" in the Declaration? How did it help shape our country’s attitudes about Native Americans over the years?
Here’s the complete sentence from the full DOI text, part of the list of "… repeated injuries and usurpations" by the King of Great Britain:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I didn’t know until a few months ago that this sentence was included in the Declaration of Independence. I’m guessing most Minnesotans aren’t aware of it either.
Here’s some background on it, from the Footnote.com site:
The Declaration of Independence accused King George III. of unleashing "merciless Indian Savages" against innocent men, women, and children. The image of ferocious warriors propelled into action by a tyrannical monarch fixed in memory and imagination the Indians’ role in the Revolution and justified their subsequent treatment. But many Indian Nations tried to stay out of the conflict, some sided with the Americans, and those who fought with the British were not the king’s pawns: they allied with the Crown as the best hope of protecting their homelands from the encroachments of American colonists and land speculators. The British government had afforded Indian lands a measure of protection by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which had attempted to restrict colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains, and had alienated many American colonists. Indians knew that the Revolution was a contest for Indian land as well as for liberty.
…
Indians fought in the Revolution for Indian liberties and Indian homelands, not for the British empire. But the image of Indian participation presented in the Declaration of Independence prevailed: most Americans believed that Indians had backed monarchy and tyranny. A nation conceived in liberty need feel no remorse about dispossessing and expelling those who had fought against its birth.
Okay, this passage surprised me too even though I have read the Declaration many times.
Historically speaking, not rhetorically, hasn’t conquest of native (or current resident) peoples been the march, albeit brutal, of civilization?
Didn’t the “Native Americans” displace the people who were before them?
Not to sound heartless, but isn’t this the story of all history, or were the European colonists less humane than the Armies of Alexander or the legions of Rome?
Or is the case being made that the “birth” of America has an aura of nobility that is hypocritical?
Just trying to come to terms with these ideas.
Hi Brian… great questions.
Native Americans did not displace previous peoples, as far as I know. Here in MN, they populated the state as the glaciers receded.
You’re probably right that conquest and colonization have nearly always been brutal… “the march of civilization” as you say.
And in addition to the arrogance of the ‘discovery’ of America and the ‘aura of nobility’ (as you say) in the birth of a nation, it was the rationalization that God meant for it all to happen, that there was a higher moral ground to it. See Manifest Destiny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
So yeah, hypocritical, especially now that we know better and still don’t do much to acknowledge it. Which is why the celebration of this year’s Sesquicentennial is still maddening to the tribes.
According to the Declaration of Independence “all people are equal” and their [endowed by the Creator] “unalienable rights” are suppose to be respected. However, indigenous people living in this land are not considered equal because when they were “discovered” [by Europeans] they were not Christians, therefore, they can not have absolute root ownership of their homelands nor be rightfully considered independent sovereign nations.
If we were to consider them as being equal we would have to give their homelands back to them and also give them due respect by declaring that their nations are independent sovereign nations. We would [then] also have to acknowledge that our “nation” is an illegitimate nation state.
More about this topic can be viewed and read in my article Independent Indigenous Sovereign Nations, located at http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/843590