notons are fundamental, but he puts in the prison his former jailers and he walks the only thing explaining the iswatches as the war flag british victory, but an important aspect of the british victory we haven't thought about. by 1763 -- yeah, question. pulled down. >> was there an 18th century >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. version of tecumseh who understood that all the tribes >> dartmouth college professor that acted based upon their own individual needs, they were in trouble? colin calloway leads a seminar prof. calloway: yeah. for high school teachers on native american history. he talks about how tribes operated as separate nations both in their interactions with i didn't plan that question. each other and with european countries. it's about an hour, 15 minutes. so in 1763, the map of north america looks like the map on good morning.: your right. so we have been talking about the blue area is gone. ways in which we can incorporate, integrate native the blue area is gone. france is gone. american experiences into american history. france has exited north america. it's divided its territory between britain east of mississippi and spain in the west.

and i suggested kind of a basically, a gave its territory west of the mississippi to spain little cameo appearances, to keep it out of the hands of pocahontas, indians waving the brits. rifles at wounded knee doesn't if you you look bottom right of really help. a little pink area, red area. and i think on sunday i said if we really did this seriously and effectively, we would come up with a very different narrative of american history. what we would now call haiti. and that may not be attainable and it may not even be desirable because we live in the real we are accustomed to hearing on world. school boards and textbook publishers and so on may have the news that it is one of the problems with that. poorest countries in the western -- westernit in so there is another approach. that's what i'm going to suggest today. hemisphere. in 1763, it was a jewel in the is to look at, if you like, french imperial crown because that was the island that produced sugar and coffee. the narrative we have, right, the one that i critiqued yesterday. that east/west narrative of the problem was, you have american growth and expansion of the nation. 30,000-40,000 french colonial population, and close to half a million black slaves, a powder to look at that and identify in keg. that narrative a missing strand. but france is gone. and that missing strand would be the native american strand. and then you look at the map on what i'm going to talk about

this morning is kind of a large your left. so britain fought this world swath of american history where i pull out native american war. strand out of it and say without native american presence, churchill called it the first world war, was victorious all without native american power, around the globe. things would not have happened as they did. in america, they acquire this huge empire now. it will take about five minutes stretching to the mississippi, which is what brits have been fighting for for a long time. get rid of the french and their for you to say, wait a minute, indian allies and the area west some of this is a little of the appalachians will be open sketchy. to settlement. because, of course, history is complex. we can move west, occupy those it's not all about one thing, lands. there's a multiplicity of issues and factors going on, but i people like george washington, thomas jefferson, benjamin would suggest that identifying a franklin, all of these guys, the colonial elites, particularly in native american strand and saying this explains american history, this explains what virginia, had heavily invested happened, is perhaps more and speculated in western lands -- no more extreme or far in expectation of that glorious day because once the french were fetched than saying it's all about freedom. it's a bunch of things, but the defeated, settlers would swarm one that i think we have omitted over the mountains and they would clean up, selling or in large part is that native american strand. renting their land to migrant population. well, look at the big red line so if we look at this picture

down the middle, down the appalachian trail, close by and then look at this map, this here. map is in many ways an academic reflection of that picture. the same years the british and i just pulled this -- you secure this massive victory, can pull this from any textbook. they also in a sense slam the it will be called the growth of door, or at least partially the united states, the closed the door on that western territorial expansion of the expansion. the proclamation line of 1763 is nation or something. designed to check expansion and and it's very useful for mapping to protect indian land. that. so what's all that about? it shows that east/west geographic growth. and it shows the different nations involved. united states acquires the at the end of the war, the territory when it acquires its french leave and the british independence from great britain, occupy the fort that the french everything to the mississippi. previously occupied. then it acquires the louisiana territory from france, and it acquires florida from spain, and the british had secured indian neutrality in the war by telling alaska from russia and oregon through agreement with britain. the shawnees and the delawares and it acquires the southwest and others the alliance would be from mexico. safe. there's a lot of nations

mentioned in that. once we kick out the french, we will be good neighbors. and not one native american nation. not a single indian nation on we're not intent on taking your this map. land. we just want to get rid of the so what our students see when french, who are bad people, and they look at it is this growth then there will be this new era. of the nation happened in the absence of native people. what happens instead is the indian people now see french and what i suggest is it happens garrisons leaving and red-coated garrisons arriving. the way it happens in large part because of native people. and this is not inevitable. not only that, but at ft. duquesne, the fort of the ohio, which had been a major contest thomas jefferson spoke about an ocean to ocean republic. point during the war, the an ocean-bound republic. here it is. british not only occupy it, the so it makes sense that we look at this map and say, yeah, fort the french have evacuated everything falls into place lock and destroyed is now replaced step, because we know this is going to happen. with a new ford, fort hit, -- but our problem is whether we're fort pitt, which is much bigger teachers or students, is that and more substantial than we're blinkered if not blinded anything that had been there by hindsight. before.

we know how the story ended. a real, if you like, symbol of and so given this massive british imperial presence. here it is, here is a depiction expansion, if you like, of this of the indians leaving ft. pitt, turning their backs on the juggernaut, yeah. british at fort pitt. indians don't figure much into it because, of course, they are just the victims of this expansion. pitt now.t hit but november 1795, john adams at the same time as british garrisons are occupying indian territory, there is a breach of promise to the indian people, said in his diary," george british policy shifts because britain has fought a world war. it's bankrupt at the end of this washington, president war. washington, has dinner one week on four different occasions with it's won a huge empire, but it's broke. different delegations of indian and what is it going to do? chiefs." if you look to the american colonies, how will it administer this is 1795, when the united states has already won, if you like, the war for ohio. that empire? washington is not having dinner every other evening or afternoon with indian delegates because he one way of doing that is to cut likes having dinner with down on the amount of money that indians. you spend on these indian i can assure you of that. he's doing it because it policies, on indian diplomacy. matters. in order to win indians from the

because the nation is still french, you have to invest huge young. amounts of money in gifts to it's still fragile. indians. it's still threatened by foreign powers who were not too friendly. britain in the north, spain in the south. because gifts are essential to doing business in indian and it's still threatened by country, to establishing alliances. still formidable indian power. not because indians are mercenary, but without gifts, so washington understands that without tangible objects to his foreign policy, the foreign policy of the new nation, must demonstrate you're serious in your commitment and your involve not only france and pledges, it's not going to work. britain and spain, but also indian nations. so now the british say we're broke. and that's something i think we we have to retrench on our have forgotten about george expenses. washington. where can we save a bunch of money? hey, let's look at the indian and this story did not have to unfold this way. department, because now the french are gone, we don't need so if we go back to the middle to cultivate indian allies of the 18th century, non-indian anymore. and general jeffrey amherst, the british commander says, we're an empire. view of north america looks like this. we dictate, we don't negotiate. again, no indian nations there. that's not how the french but look at all that blue.

in the middle of the 18th operated, a lesson the english century, and looked -- are going to have to relearn. what that amounts to for indian particularly if you were looking at north america from london, people is these red coats who presented themselves to us as like there was a strong allies and friends for the future are clearly our enemies. likelihood that the continent was going to be blue, that it they're occupying our lands with was going to be french. troops, which is the one thing because from the british perspective, the british we were fighting against, and at the same time, by cutting off colonies are hemmed in east of and withholding gifts, refusing the appalachian mountains and to give gifts, limiting trade west of the appalachians, it's all french. with us. and you would get the impression that's essentially a declaration that this is a predominant of hostile intent. french power. well, it's not. it's a house of cards. and out of that comes a multi-tribal, multi-national because the french empire in north america is built on the indian resistance movement led fur trade which requires indian by or at least attributed to a war chief by the name of customers, indian hunters, and french defenses, french power, if you like, in the west, revolves around a network of pontiac. alliances with indian nations. he's not the only guy. this is a ferment of discontent

somebody pointed out yesterday, running through the ohio valley, this is why the french pay such the great lakes. attention to their diplomatic relations with indian people, to getting it right. where indian people are looking at what's happening and how their lands and independence are and that involved not only being threatened by this new endless negotiations, learning imperial presence. the language of diplomacy, but and 12 years before the american revolution, they take on the also endless gift giving because british empire. in indian society and indian diplomacy, giving gifts and and do it with tremendous receiving gifts is the lubricant effect. of that diplomacy. something like 2,000 people are killed, hundreds of british troops are killed. gifts which might involve silver almost all of the british ports medals, guns, alcohol, whatever. west of the appalachian mountains are taken. not only desirable artifacts but they are symbols of commitment. niagara, detroit, fault pit are all laid siege to. allies give each other gifts. giving gifts illustrates, demonstrates that you're that war ends not so much with speaking the truth, that you're british victory but with a backing up what you say with series of negotiations. words, when you say we're allies and friends, you demonstrate that in a tangible way with giving gifts. the french got that down to a fine art. because the british realized that this new policy of

dictating to indians doesn't and it looks as if, and work. for an empire to function and survive in indian country requires consent and allegiance certainly the british in the with indian people. middle of the 18th century feared that that french relationship with indian nations what do indian people want? was not only going to stifle anglo american expansion, but it they want their lands protected and preserved. would also, might also translate into a permanent french empire so even before pontiac's war, as in north america. it's called, happens, the british are saying we've got to and it didn't. do something about this, we've got to do something to check the and it didn't because in the flood of settlement going on to french and indian war or what is indian land. called in europe the seven years as long as that's unchecked, war, the british defeat the french. we're going to have constant conflict and expensive wars they do that famously in our which we can't afford. textbooks when general wolf so pontiac's war sends captures quebec, et cetera. reverberations all the way back but they also do that less produces several key famously because the british recognize the achilles heel of the french in north america is decisions. also their strength, those indian alliances. one is we need to keep an army, a military presence in north and if they can seduce in the america.

we need to keep an army of -- whatever it is -- 10,000 troops. 18th century sense of the term that's expensive. how we going to pay for that at indians, win them over to the british side or at least secure a time when british taxpayers their neutrality, they have been taxed to the hilt after funding this long, effectively undermine french expensive war? power. so the french fortresses in the well, here's an idea. west, that dotted through the since this war was fought and this garrison is being west, that sent chills down the maintained to protect our north american citizens, let's ask spines of the british ministers, them to help foot the bill. are usually puny little palisades with a garrison of a let's have taxation, even though their defense, not we may not have representation. so we all know where that went. [laughter] prof. calloway: one of the smarter ideas coming out of that. the other thing we don't pay so firepower or defenses but on the much attention to is this proclamation line. indian people who are living around them. with very good will, the french in october 1763, the british have a presence and a power. without the tolerance and allegiance of indian people, it government issues king george just evaporates. so an important part of the british victory in the seven the third, signs the royal years war, particularly in the proclamation. west, involves diplomatic victory. winning indians over.

basically what it says is we need to keep maverick traders out of indian country, people one way to do that is to cut off who are going to cheat indians, the supply of goods to the cause all kinds of problems. we've got to limit that. french. so you can only trade in indian country with a license from because without the giving of colonial governments. gifts, indian diplomacy is bankrupted. so when the british destroy the more importantly, we're going to check expansion. we're not going to halt expansion. this line -- imaginary line that french atlantic fleet in 1759, that has huge repercussions. first of all, it means no more we run down the appalachian mountains will be moved. supplies, no more troops make it across to canada, but it also what will happen is that it will cuts out, cuts off french happen in an orderly process supplies. determined by the central government in london. all this that i'm talking about when the british capture quebec, will sound very familiar in about an hour when i'm talking that severs the french supply about united states indian policy. you'll say deja vu. didn't we just do this? line so that french goods, that yes, we did. is gifts for indians, cannot make it into the west. similar kind of things. because the thinking is that the this erosion is taking place

after 1758. problems on the frontier stem from the people on the frontier. so that drying up, if you like, people stealing indian land, murdering indian people, causing conflict. of french goods coinciding with that's going to generate endless bloodshed. if you have the central a reversal of tide in the war, convinced indians maybe we want to rethink our options. government, whether it's in philadelphia or london, determining when this expansion and either opt out of this will happen, it can be done in a conflict, which we have been fighting for the most part on more systematic way with fair the side of the french, or maybe side with the british. with the british and french talk treatment of indian people. about that happening, they people can't just explain it from a british and french perspective. go west, they can go north and south. one of the things the brits were that is you cannot trust trying to do is populate indians. they are fickle. colonies up in nova scotia and good 18th century word. in the south. unreliable, and they're mercenary. they only turn out to fight for the highest bidder. but indian land west of the appalachians, west of this line, and so what are indians doing? well, we don't know what indians are doing looking at this map can only be ceded to the because there were no indians on this map. this is a european fantasy. government, and it can only be done in open treaty between the

but if we consider that blue duly authorized, if you like, area or that blue and red representatives of the indian striped area, as inhandbited not tribes, and the official agents of the crowns. -- inhabited not just by indians but by multiple indian nations, all of whom have their own foreign policies, they sit at so you can't have every tom, dick and harry pulling off a the center of their own universe land deal in indian country. and they're dealing with not now this has huge effects. it doesn't have much effect on only france and britain but squatters. right? different colonial colonies and scotch-irish immigrants on the different indian nations as well. frontiers of pennsylvania say, "hell with that. because we're scotch-irish." that forces us to think right? my people. differently. what are the indians fighting [laughter] for? prof. calloway: they go across they're not fighting for france, the line and they settle. except in so far as french and sometimes they get kicked out by the brits, by the british army, but the british army interests coincide with their doesn't have the resources, will own. they can maybe align with the power or the money to keep doing french if you like, use it that. -- the french as pawns in their the people this proclamation really affects are those people war to limit english settlement. i mentioned earlier -- george washington, benjamin franklin, but the two main objects are to the people who have been main their own independence. investing heavily and speculating in western land, who

were going to make a killing also, to maintain their own land. you dont want european garrisons when all the settlers went west to take up these lands. and sellers on your land. you do want european traders because they will bring the guns they were going to be there to and other things you require. sell them. so as situations shift, so do now there is a, to say the native american foreign policy, so to tribal foreign policies. this would not be unusual. this is how nations operate. least, this puts a huge cloud over that title. this is a major event that we haven't always attributed that same, if you like, common causes many people like george sense logic to the indian washington to rethink their allegiance to the british people. empire. and diplomacy is at the heart of all of this. astute, effective, because the empire which they sophisticated, native american fought and served and sacrificed for, instead of rewarding them with their deserved fruits of diplomats shoveling between victories, withholding them. quebec and albany, between it seems as if that williamsburg and new orleans, french/indian barrier which once figuring out strategies, whereby curtailed colonial settlement then their people have the best has been replaced by a british chance of survival. - indian barrier. it is becoming an increasingly >> who were george washington and his buddies buying the land perilous world for indian from? people. it's not an easy thing to do. prof. calloway: buy being?

but those native american >> snatching. prof. calloway: what you do, if you are a colonial government like the colonial government of virginia, the king has given you a huge land grant. i'm simplifying very hugely. king has given you a huge grant of land, so the colonial government or the governor can then distribute that land. so what you have happening say in virginia is that the virginia colonial government, the house of burgesses, which is made up of elite families, members of the elite families of virginia, is making land grants to people who are members of the elite families of virginia. and so you get these claims, is really what they are, to lands out west. but people like washington devote a tremendous amount of effort and money into getting those lands surveyed, and because once you've got them surveyed, then you've got to get those registered and you've got a claim to them.

but what happens is, if this line holds for say ten years, and then the british government says, ok, we'll move the line west, and george washington moves -- and this actually happens in washington's life. he goes west to look at his properties, and there are people living on his property. on what he thinks is his property. he says, wait a minute, i'm george washington, i just won the revolution. [laughter] prof. calloway: you're on my land. and these are again, scotch-irish fellows who say, wait a minute, we were here, we cleared the land, we risked our lives fighting the indians. it's our land, go to hell. and washington takes them to court. so you get the situation where the most important man in the nation, the hero of the revolution, is involved in this court claim with these poor settlers. so that's -- it's all very complicated. but what it seems like to many

people is that what we assumed that we had a mutual interest, that we were subjects of the british empire and happy to sacrifice for that, that's no longer the case. so in a lot of ways when you war, of pontiac's taxation, presence of the british army and this proclamation line, it is then a kind of straight shot to the revolution. and 20 years later, 1763, then 1783, a different piece of paris. the british recognized not only the 13 colonies but transferred everything south of the great lakes, north of florida and east of the mississippi, which means that the new united states, having turned its back on one empire, can now turn west and build another empire.

but again, this is land inhabited by other people. so what we've all been talking about here -- or what i've been talking about -- all that i've been talking about, france, britain exchanging territory. colonial governments handing out territory. this is a board game. the european colonial powers play with little or no reference to the people on the ground. but the people on the ground matter, because they still have real power. and so after the break, we're going to be talking about how the united states tries to translate that, if you like, paper claim to this territory which has been handed by great britain, and make that a reality so that you can take tribal homelands and translate them into american real estate. yeah.

>> what kind of relationship existed between those scotch-irish settlers and the native nations that they were encroaching on? prof. calloway: not particularly positive. [laughter] prof. calloway: actually, we're going to talk about -- these guys are going to come back. we'll talk in about an hour. so when king james vi of scotland becomes king james i of england, union of the crowns, one of the things he wants to do is, first of all, settle conflict on the border between england and scotland. good luck doing that. right? you seen a scottish football team go to wembley recently? and, of course deal with the perennial irish problem. one of the things he does is transport people from the border of scotland and england and the west of scotland to northern

ireland, create a protestant barrier over there. and they're designed to serve as a barrier against the wild irish. with consequences in irish history that go on well into the 20th, 21st century. in the 18th century, much of -- many of those scott-irish, they're then called, migrate to north america. they get to philadelphia. and then pennsylvania, government of pennsylvania, does exactly the same thing with them. sort of flagged them out to the frontier, while these scotch-irish who are coming from a culture of hundreds of years of basically beating each other up, can go out on the frontier and act as either the short troops of empire or a buffer against the wild indians. and as we'll see, you follow the appalachian trail, appalachian mountains. right? we talked about the configuration of the mountains. the tendency in these mountains is south and west.

these are the people and descendents of these people who keep going into indian country, down through georgia into cherokee country, then trend west. people with names like calhoun, jackson, boyd, crockett, these are people on the frontier and they make their way in some cases to texas, and they'll occur again. one of the government officials in pennsylvania, i think he sums up, "they're hard neighbors to the indians." i think that's probably a pretty fair characterization. but that empire building of the united states doesn't stop at the mississippi, of course, because in 1803, thomas jefferson acquires louisiana for territory for -- what is it? $15 million? 800,000 square miles. the nation doubles size overnight.

it is a huge stat in the growth of the nation, and it's one that obviously thomas jefferson gets huge credit for. but it's not as natural or logical or inevitable as it looks. because that louisiana territory of course had been in 1763 handed to spain. but, in the meantime what's happened, while the revolution has happened, the american revolution has happened, in large part, i would argue, because of what indians have done. in the american revolution, the french come in on the side of the americans as an opportunity to settle old scores with the brits. and you have french officers, french troops in america fighting alongside the americans.

who then go home, and they go home in some cases carrying the ideals of revolution. all men are created equal. how is that going to play in a country with an absolute monarchy? and the french revolution, obviously is a product of a complex interplay of factors, but ideology, thinking, just a simple notion plays into that. napoleon subverts that revolution and begins to create an empire in north america. and in 1800, he pressures spain into handing louisiana territory back to france. because, in part, part of his vision of this new world order that he's going to create, is a rebuilding, a restoration of the french empire in north america.

but, the ideas of the french revolution are no more easily contend than the american revolution, and one of the places where ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity go is santo domingo, haiti. it is not only a massive slave math -- mosthe massive slave revolt since spartacus and it is the only time a slave society rises up over shackles and establishes its own independent republic. this is going on in the atlantic in the same era as the american revolution. how often do our books talk about that?

so if napoleon is going to have a realistic opportunity to rebuild his french empire in america and in the west, he's going to get control of what is now haiti. so he sends troops to haiti. and napoleon's french troops in the caribbean do what british troops in the caribbean did in the seven years war. they die. i wanted this to be a picture of the mosquito that carries yellow fever and all kinds of other diseases, including the zika virus. i think it actually might be an asian tiger mosquito, so bear with me. [laughter] so you go into noble, and you go to the american history section.

and we're all obsessed with biographies of the founding fathers. right? i'm writing one. not a biography but i'm writing on george washington. so the shelves are weighed down with biographies of adams, jefferson, washington, hamilton. right? musical, right? there should be a biography of this guy. because this guy, i think, is the reason why louisiana territory becomes america. because this is the guy that kills the french troops. french troops are dying by the thousand. so that when thomas jefferson sends ministers to paris to negotiate the purchase of new orleans, because as jefferson said, whoever controls new orleans is our natural enemy. right? because you think of that western expansion. if you're a farmer, if you're in the west, if you're in kentucky, or points west, you're not thinking to lug your produce back across the appellation mountains.

-- appalachian mountains. you're looking to float it down the ohio, down the mississippi to new orleans. if spain holds out, if france holds out, you've got a problem. so jefferson's ministers go looking to buy new orleans. they arrive in paris and the french minister says, have we got a deal for you. because napoleon has decided to unload. the war with britain, the disasters in the caribbean, convinced napoleon to wash his hands of the french empire. this is not jefferson's vision. this is not -- well, maybe it is divinely ordained. maybe that's what's explains it all. but maybe it's chance. which we don't like to necessarily think about. so look at this. so yes, my daughter did this,

yeah. but you could construct something like this. and this is my notion of how indian gifts -- the whole question indian gifts affects american history. so the british failure and refusal to give gifts to indians in 1763 produces an explosion, pontiac's revolt, around detroit. all hell breaks loose. that sends repercussions all the way across the atlantic to london. ok, what are we going to do about this? a number of things, one of those being the proclamation of 1763. that sends repercussions all through the colonies. among the people, if you like, who matter -- colonial elites now think maybe we'd be better off on our own. and 1776, declaration of independence, philadelphia. the american revolution sends

through thens all atlantic world, including to france. the french revolution sends therberations through atlantic world, including haiti. the slave revolt in haiti. napoleon's plans to rebuild an empire in north america. he sells louisiana territory to thomas jefferson. thomas jefferson sends lewis and clark up the missouri river to bought. he had and louis and clark heading up the missouri river are doing just fine with their relations with indian people until they meet the sioux. and the sioux on the missouri river say, hm, ok, more white people coming up the missouri river. we've french traders and spanish traders coming out of new portland -- new orleans and st.

louis heading up to the villages. you pay a toll. this is our river. you recognize our sovereignty by giving us gifts. you got a boat load of stuff. give us some of it. french traders and spanish traders had had no problem doing that. it was just part of the cost of doing business in indian country. louis and clark are there for a different purpose. they are there to declare united states sovereignty in this new territory that they've acquired. it would be counterproductive, in a sense, to try and establish american sovereignty by giving the gifts that recognized the sovereignty of the sioux people on the river. and the whole thing almost falls apart at that point. fortunately, it doesn't, and

louis and clark can be seen as the opening of the american expansion into the louisiana territory, which we will look at in some detail. are moving into, contrary to those maps that we looked at, is not an empty space. it is a space inhabited by indian peoples, indian nations. and contrary to what those maps might suggest, there's been an awful lot of stuff going on there in the previous 50 or 100 years, primarily because of the influx into that area of horses southwest,spanish which not only transformed the way of life of plains indians, but also transformed the plains a contested area.

because that equation i think of horses and buffalo and grass is one tremendous power for creating unprecedented prosperity. this is a new way of life that beckons people onto the plains. so that the plains becomes not only a place where people have lived for thousands of years, but also a place where other people move into, to take advantage of the new opportunities being presented. go west, young man, 18th century style. right? what american pioneers do in the 19th century, cheyenne and other indian people do in the 18th century. they give up farming to move on to the plains and become equestrian buffalo hunters because that's where the power

and the prosperity lies. but you have to fight for it, because other indian people are doing the same thing. they're hunting more extensively. they are fighting more effectively because they have horses and they're also having guns. and so this becomes a kind of cauldron of conflict. but, this increase of communication of contact and movement on the plains also opens up these societies to devastation. so lots of our books talk about the american revolution. all of our books talk about the american revolution, right? washington and the brits killing each other by the hundreds. right? very few of them talk about what was happening west of the mississippi at the time the american revolution was going on. what we're talking about death tolls not in the hundreds, but in the thousands.

in september, 1779, smallpox breaks out in mexico city, kills 18,000 people by christmas. goes everywhere. goes south, goes -- yuckatan, baja, california. makes its way eventually to santa fe and san antonio, which is a long way north. places,reaches those and it kills 5,000 people in new mexico because the spanish missionaries keep count of the death toll. when it reaches santa fe and san antonio, it's reached places which are already established as trade centers where indian people from across the plains come to get horses. they come to buy them or liberate them. and so what happens is, this smallpox epidemic begins to

spread across western north america following the same trails of communication and trade by which horses have traveled. it's almost as if the horses opened up these arteries by which this killer epidemic now spreads all across north america. fisher shoney's, when -- the spanishs, they had bridles. spanish horses, a 12-day ride away. as i understand it, smallpox takes 14 days for symptoms to appear. shone, you cansho be down stealing horse, trading horses from the spaniards, be infected with smallpox, you can

be home sleeping with your wife, kissing your babies before the smallpox erupts. it goes pretty much everywhere. blackfeet get it from the sh oshone, it goes across the northern plains, it goes to the central trade villages. in the winter of 1783-84, hudson bay company traders on the shores of hudson bay who are used to indian people coming in and bringing their pelts -- nobody comes. so they go out into indian villages and people are dead. and they talk about going in to the lodges and gathering the beaver pelts themselves because their customers and hunters have all died. that's the same epidemic that broke out in mexico city four years earlier. who knows how many people died. conservatively, maybe half the population of the west. what are the implications for that, of that, for american expansion in that area? when we look at the conflict between the united states and

the indian peoples of the plains and that american victory, we have to take into account that these are societies that have been thrown into upheaval even at the same time as they're building that power. this is a massive, massive event in the west. we need to incorporate these kinds of things in our history, not just so that we can include indians, but so that we can get a full picture of what's going on and what happened. so, now back to texas and our scotch-irish guys. among the peoples moving on to the plains are people like the comanche, who emerge and build themselves in to a major indigenous power on the southern plains. they do so by beating up other people. incorporating other people in their society like an american

melting pot, controlling and dominating trade networks so that they're getting guns from wichita indians who are trading with french traders on the mississippi. shuttling between wichita indians and pueblo indians in the west. they build an economy based on buffalo hunting, for sure, but also on herding, pasturalism and also on raiding the south, raiding spanish settlements, and then later raiding mexican settlements. so one of the things the mexican government does is what kind of the pennsylvania government had done, well, let's get some people in here to act as a buffer to protect ourselves against the comanches and the yutes and the apaches, these newly powerful indian nations who now have horses and guns and are beating up on us.

silly attract people from, many cases, the american south. people like jim boyd, davy crockett. they are there to act as a buffer. of course, we all know the stories. these are americans, they're not going to put up with mexican dominance for long. they will declare their independence, and we have the alamo attacks for independence. part of the independence, as you know, is the independence to hold slaves. because one of the things the mexican government does is try to ban slavery in its provinces. but those people i think would not have been there had it not been for fact that the mexican government is looking for some way to protect its frontiers against indian power.

then you look to the mexican section, the sort of pale pink area. huge chunk of territory. and that we explain of course by the mexican war or the war with mexico, 1846-48. which is often characterized as a pretty easy victory for the united states. and it results in this massive transfer of territory, including california and everything that that means. again, if we look at this map, it seems like that's got to be a pretty straightforward story. this was bound to happen because the mexican government was weak, mexican troops were ineffective, american troops were courageous, all of those kinds of things.

but if we look at that map differently, and that includes this guy, a comanche warrior, you'll get a different story. because first the spanish empire and its northern frontier and then mexico has to confront this comanche power. and so instead of a map that looks like this, consider a map that looks like this, where you plug in an indian nation, and in this case you plug in not only an indian nation but the dominant power, indian or not, on the southern plains. this comanche power, which has been called by some scholars, a comanche empire, which involves not only the comanches dominating the southern plains,

but also including as part of their economy constant raiding south into mexico. scholars -- not me -- scholars who worked in the spanish and mexican archives have built a picture from the other side, if you like, where these indian raids erode over generations. the capacity of mexico to defend its northern frontiers. when we include this, then our understanding of the mexican war has to shift. and i think this is not just academic interest. i can remember teaching the university of wyoming, getting student essays which talked about the mexican war in derogatory terms about mexicans. obviously we won the war because

of negative mexican traits. mexicans lost the war with the united states, perhaps not because they were mexicans, but because they had been getting beaten up on by major indigenous powers so that by the time american troops arrive, they really just have to topple it over. now i don't want to sort of completely revise everything, but these are the kinds of things we need to talk about. if we inject or super impose perhaps indian nations on to those maps that are empty of indian nations, it prompts us and hopefully prompts our students to rethink it and think that it can't be that simple, especially if we do what we don't normally do, and that is to recognize the indian power

matters, indian people were present everywhere in north america at every stage, and that what they did was make decisions, develop foreign policies, flex their muscles in ways that made sense from their native american perspective, not play out some bit part that's been prescribed for them in american history.