I’m reading from an old copy - but one of the grievances against the King of England that is cited in the body of the D. of I. is this: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indan Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.” What domestic insurrections does this refer to? and what does it mean that he has endeavored “to bring on” the inhabitants of their frontiers?
from http://www.tamut.edu/~knichols/1301AmRev.html
Seems the British attempted to enlist the Iroquois at least for intimidation and/or warfare. The colonists had little patience for any other than themselves employing native Americans militarily.
A slew of other sources where reading between the lines indicates a general shared cause between some Indian tribes and the British Crown against the colonists who wanted the Indians’ lands. Some other tribes felt their interests were more with the colonists, if they could be treated as partners/equals.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/seminar/unit1/ocon.html
http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/american_indians.html
http://www.fulcrum-books.com/html/wampum_belts_and_peace_trees.html
http://www.pequotmuseum.org/Articles/ARCHIVEDARTICLES/CrossPathsSummer2003/TheRevolutionandNewEnglandIndians.htm
http://www.thecajuns.com/marylnrs.htm
My own sense of this is to remember that by the time the DoI was drawn up, the colonies were already in open rebellion, but not all citizens were in revolt. The “Tories”, with support from the crown, tried to oust those behind the insurrections any number of times in any number of locations.
As for the other phrase, I think a better choice of words would have been “to bring upon”, referring to incitement of Indian tribes to attack those Colonists living farthest to the West.
The first source I cited also notes that British Indian agents cautioned the colonists about the dangers of attempting to colonize the trans-Appalachian regions. The British relayed threats by some native leaders, but were interpreted as the British inciting the natives against them.
Near the beginning of the American Revolution, the Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued a proclamation saying that any slave who would fight for the crown would be granted his freedom. That’s the “excited domestic insurrection” part. Also, during the revolution, most Indian tribes fought on behalf of the crown. That’s the “bring on the inhabitants” part. In short, the British are letting slaves and Indians fight for them.
As to endeavouring to “bring on” the Indians:
-
During the French and Indian War (1754-1753), Britain signed treaties with various tribes in an attempt to keep them from allying with the French. One such treaty is the 1758 Treaty of Easton. Britain promised to keep white settlers out of the Ohio River Valley if the Indians would stop supporting the French. This was a betrayal of what the colonists felt were their rights in the area. The colonists refused to stay out of the territory and this lead to attacks like Pontiac’s war which brought Indians as far east as present day Reading (about an hour west of Philly).
-
In 1763, Britain declared a Proclamation Line along the east side of the Appalachian Mountains. They established about 40 forts along this line, supposedly for the regulation of trade with the Indians. This certainly would bring more people along these boundaries, and it was seen by the colonists as an attempt to confine them and prevent the expansion into the continent.
-
I don’t have specific information on this, but the British did encourage Indians to fight the colonists along the border during the actual fighting of the revolution. Whether or not this policy started before the Declaration of Independence was written I do not know.
As to inciting domestic insurrections:
These are less concrete reasons than the first two pieces of the Indian answer.
-
The 1740s in the American Colonies saw a large increase in the number of “squatters” and related land riots. There was a conflict between the view of many colonists (along the lines of the arguments made in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government) that use leads to legitmate claims of property ownership and the large land grants given by the British Crown to rich supporters. This is tied even more to the British Crown as the elites in America became more “Anglicized” in their tastes - emulating British High Society.
-
There were confusing, often conflicting claims to lands based on Royal Colonial Charters. These conflicts led to much violence and bloodshed which were eacily laid at the foot of the Crown. Two examples of these conflicts are the “New Hampshire Grants” disputed by New York in what would become Vermont, and the claims that Connecticut, MAryland, and Virginia made on lands that would become parts of Pennsylvania.
-
The Knowles Riot in Boston (the largest in Colonial history before the Stamp Act Riot) could arguably be blamed on the British. On Nov 17, 1747 Knowles (a British Naval Officer) impresses a number of sailors into British service in Boston harbor in violation of prior agreements between Britain and the colonies. The ensuing violence managed to get the sailors released, and in the aftermath Sam Adams became the first revolutionary to publically cite John Locke’s theories as authority to resist British actions.
-
Further riots have, as their root cause, actions by either British agents in America or the acts of Parliament. These acts were the incitement to riot, and they were laid, by the colonists, at the foot of the King.
Wait a sec. Was it George W. who said “bring on the inhabitants”?
Connecticut?
Yuppers=)
at one time, the map of the colonies shows connecticut as a band sweeping westward ho!
checking quick to see if i can find a link on line for it…it was in my poly sci test in uni lo these 20 odd [some of them very odd] years ago.
Ha, found it=)
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/reference/maps/freeimages.asp?ImageID=288&o_xid=0022468880&o_lid=0022468880&sourceid=00224688809414935346
sorry if it wraps funky…
ancestry.com and search for historical maps - english colonies 1660 - 1700. Note Connecticut Company controls a swatch extending way over thar…all the way to the mighty mississip. i know it isnt really commonly considered, but there was a fair amount of children, women and the occasional young man ‘kidnapped’ by the indians, but people dont really remember that most of them actually ended up at the other end of new york state, and into the ohio valley from their original homes in mass and ct=) the indians were rather well traveled, and the europeans as well. The Connecticut company controlled the fur trade inthat area, as the Hudson Bay Company controlled it in major parts of Canada.
Not only Pennsylvania, but Ohio claimed what had been Connecticut lands. Most folks get thrown off by not realizing how far South the Hudson Valley and Catskill Mountains drag New York state’s southern boundary. The 42d Parallel on which the Pennsylvania northern border extends to the Erie panhandle is only a couple of miles south of the Connecticut northern border (which angles up and does not follow the line of latitude). Extending that line West, on the far side of the Erie panhandle, Ohio was subject to the same claim. Northeast Ohio has lots of things (such as the university) named “Western Reserve” because that was land sold off to compensate Connecticut for giving up their claims to that “western reserve.” (Farther west, the lands around Sandusky were sold off to compensate some Connecticut towns that were burned by the British Navy and the region is called the Firelands.)
See, there’s your problem. You’ve got to get a later edition. It’s much clearer.
[grinny here]
I guess that was a non-sequitur. I was looking at a photo of one of the original versions. The original had been folded, so some lines weren’t easy to read. And, of course, lots of s’s looked like f’s. And there was the peculiar habit of placing commas where they might not actually help. So I wasn’t even sure if I had the words correct, let alone the meaning.