Peoples of the Inland Sea. David Andrew Nichols
and farms, the Midwest was the home to major urban centers. In 1920 three of the five largest cities in the nation were in the Midwest, and even today, despite massive migration to the sunbelt, there are four midwestern cities in the top fifteen. The great urban centers of the Midwest include Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Kansas City. For a century—from the late nineteenth century to the late twentieth century—the region was not only an agricultural heartland but also the nation’s industrial heartland. Many of the key industries of the twentieth century began in the Midwest and developed there. Many midwestern cities were known by the industries they dominated, such as Detroit (automobiles), Toledo (glass), Akron (rubber), flour and milling (Minneapolis), and even breakfast cereals (Battle Creek). While most Americans associate the oil industry with Texas and Oklahoma, it began with John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company in Cleveland. The airplane industry began with the Wright Brothers in Ohio and with the manufacturing of planes in Wichita. While Pittsburgh (which was almost a mid-western city) called itself the “steel city,” more steel was manufactured in Youngstown, Gary, Chicago, Cleveland, and other midwestern cities, usually from ore that came from Minnesota’s Iron Range. The Midwest was always America’s agricultural heartland, producing grains, pork, beef, and dairy products. But this food production led to midwestern industries beyond the farms. Beef and pork raised in the Midwest were processed and packaged in Cincinnati in the antebellum period, and later in Chicago and other cities. Midwestern farmers and food processors fed the nation at lunch and dinner, while General Mills, Kellogg, and Quaker Oats, complemented by bacon from Swift, Armor, and Hormel, provided breakfast for the nation. The cows and hogs that fed the nation were themselves fed by midwestern feed companies, while the crops were cultivated and harvested using machines built by International Harvester, John Deere, Massey-Ferguson, and similar companies.
All of these products were grown, processed, and manufactured by migrants from the East and the South, and immigrants mostly from Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe and the Ottoman Empire. The Midwest of the popular imagination was homogeneous and almost boring; in reality the Midwest that emerged in the early twentieth century was as culturally, ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse as it was economically diverse.
The books in this series capture the complexity of the Midwest and its historical and continuing role in the development of modern America.
David Nichols’s Peoples of the Inland Sea provides a solidly researched exploration of American Indians in the region that we now call the Midwest. Its unique analysis begins in the seventeenth century, when Europeans and Native Americans first came into contact in the region, and traces events and important individuals through the late early republic, which by 1830 witnessed the almost total loss of Indian lands to American settlement. The removal of some 50,000 Indians from the Great Lakes region did not erase their history or their significant accomplishments, triumphs, and tragedies. Nichols captures those experiences, giving voice to the 170,000 Lakes Indians who lived near the Great Lakes basin by 1600. A diverse people, Lakes Indians represented more than a dozen different nations, lived in settled towns and villages, and traded over long distances. Their strong numbers began to recede as soon as Europeans found value in the trade and landholding opportunities surrounding the Great Lakes. Lakes Indian domination proved to be no match for the thousands of French and then British who flooded into the Great Lakes region. In the late seventeenth century their alliance with the French set the Lakes Indians on a path of cooperation and conflict that ended in the British triumph in the French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War). Relations with the British soon soured and the stand Lakes Indians waged in Pontiac’s War foretold generations of conflict between Europeans and Native Americans in the Midwest. Nichols masterfully captures this narrative, detailing the history of individual tribes and their interactions with other Lakes Indians and the Europeans. His study fills an important gap in the early history of the American Midwest.
L. Diane Barnes
Paul Finkelman
Introduction
VIEWING A PHYSICAL MAP OF NORTH AMERICA, ONE IS STRUCK, AS one’s eyes move southward from the Arctic, by the countless thousands of large lakes gouged into the landscape. Products of glacial scouring during the last Ice Age, these immense freshwater reservoirs have long furnished human beings in Canada and the northern United States with a superabundance of resources: fish, timber, wild game, and transport, allowing lakeside peoples more easily to trade over long distances. The northern part of the continent contains six of the ten largest lakes (by surface area) in the world. Four of these, plus Lake Ontario, form part of an interlinked inland sea at the southern edge of the former Lauren-tide Ice Sheet, a sea commonly known as the Great Lakes.1
In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Great Lakes and their shorelands became the industrial heart of the United States, a vast marshaling zone for raw materials and the locale of some of the most productive commercial and industrial cities in the hemisphere. By then, however, the Great Lakes already had a very long history of human habitation, production, and trade, dating to the end of the Ice Ages. For all but a century or so of that history, most of the people who lived, worked, fought, and prayed in the Lakes region, who grew their crops in its fertile lowlands and valleys, who fished in its mighty freshwater seas and plied the waters of the Lakes and their tributary rivers with their birch-and-cedar canoes, who traded goods both exotic and mundane and built monumental mounds and smaller but still impressive longhouses and lodges, and who married and bore children and buried their dead there, were Native Americans.2
The Great Lakes Indians left (and continue to produce) a substantial record of their lives and achievements: archaeological sites, stories and myths, visual images and pictograms, recorded interviews and speeches, documents written by European observers, and writing generated by literate Indians. This grew particularly intricate and detailed after 1600, when Native Americans in the region began their sustained encounter with Europeans and European-Americans, who introduced them to alphabetic script and routine record keeping. Like material artifacts, oral traditions, and other forms of nonwritten evidence, textual documents require interpretation for modern readers to account for the biases of record keepers and to provide historical and cultural context. Since the 1950s, scholars have employed the interpretive tools of anthropologists, sociologists, and linguists to interpret European records and develop a more Native-centered history of American Indians. These scholars generally call themselves ethnohistorians.3
Ethnohistorians began applying their tools to the history of the Great Lakes Indians from the inception of their field, and by the 1970s and ’80s they had produced a number of sensitive, thoughtful, book-length analyses of the changes occurring within particular Lakes nations. In 1991 the historian Richard White published a synthetic overview of Indian-white relations in the entire region, which had a powerful impact not only on ethnohistorians but on all American historians. White argued that Europeans and Indians enjoyed a rough balance of power on the Great Lakes frontier, and that this compelled them to create a “middle ground,” a complex of diplomatic protocols, trading customs, and other “creative misunderstandings” that governed their relationships with one another until the nineteenth century. White’s study provided an influential metaphor to all students of frontiers and borderlands, not just the Great Lakes region, and it was not for several years that scholars began to challenge it, arguing that the Lakes Indians enjoyed even greater cultural independence and political power than White already ascribed to them. Indians generally held the upper hand in their dealings with a French empire that claimed but could not enforce sovereignty over the Lakes region and Mississippi valley. Other historians argued that both the British Empire and the early United States labored under such restraints on their resources that Native Americans remained an independent political force in the region until 1815—even later in the north. The Lakes country now appears to have been not a middle ground but (borrowing Kathleen DuVal’s term) a “native ground.”4
Contact and conflict with the French, British, and American empires became one of the central dynamics of Lakes Indian history from the seventeenth to the early nineteenth century. Empires wanted Native Americans’ resources and loyalty, and Native Americans desired European alliance and trade goods. The other factor