Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans Paperback – May 2, 2001

This is a pretty remarkable book that focuses not just on Jefferson's philosophy and dealings with Native Americans but the abundance of treaties during the pre-revolution up through Jefferson's administration. As always, any book about Jefferson is challenged by Jefferson's complex personality and the reader should be cautioned that the author sees Jefferson in a less than enlightened manor than many historians who in turn are great admirers of the man. For one, the author does not see Jefferson as a man of original ideas but one who is well educated and refines the ideas of others. The author also sees Jefferson, as many of the prominent signers of the declaration of independence as a major investor in securing western lands. The author tackles Jefferson's unique view of the Indians that in some ways parallel his view on slavery. Although an admirer of the Indians and anxious to make treaties, there is no doubt that Jefferson believed in expansionism as his treaties secured America a wealth of land making Jefferson the greatest securer of territories other than President Polk. The author details a multitude of treaties among the tribes conveyed by numerous Indian agents in the various territories and describes them in detail from the various Indian chiefs to the complexities of the land dealings. I would have preferred more maps to clearly understand the tribal boundaries in contrast to U.S.'s current boundaries. Included with the treaties are descriptions of the various Indian clashes particularly in the northwest that after a disaster is reconciled by the whites victory at Fallen Timbers by "Mad Anthony" Wayne. Of particular interest for a student of Jefferson is his philosophy of westernizing the Indians by attempting what in his mind were fair treaties while encouraging trading with the Indians to increase an interdependency that would eventually lead Indians to end up becoming more like whites, cultivating land and living in settlements. As one European writer noted who traveled to the frontier noted, life was extraordinarily difficult for the pioneers living on the fringe; he did not see this being successful for the Indians who were very far from transportation and commerce areas. In addition, Jefferson had no expectations that Indians could actually intermingle in a white society and he had expectations that all tribes would have to move further west, an action taken by force by Andrew Jackson during his presidency. The author covers a great deal of territory including the fascinating relationship between President Jefferson and the controversial General Wilkinson who was not only commander of all U.S. forces, temporary governor of the Louisiana territory but also as an Indian agent. The author frequently sprinkles letters and documents written by key participants, including Jefferson, and he provides numerous insights into the Native American point of view. As stated earlier, the author has a more direct objective look at Jefferson, one passage from an observer writes of Jefferson walking among his slaves with an implement in his hand, noting that the slaves reacted as they would if any 'master' walked among them, working obviously harder in his presence. The author does not criticize Jefferson any more than any other slave owner but represents him, as he was, a plantation owner, philosopher and a man of his times. From this serious work, you will appreciate the difficulties Native Americans had in holding onto their lands while seeing Jefferson as a mixture between a benevolent leader to a man with a great national appetite for expansion.

As author of 23 books on TJ, I have twice tried to read this book, but have never got beyond the introduction. This is stale revisionist BS! TJ had a "deeply controlling temperament" and a "willingness to trample on civil liberties and use force to achieve national goals"? AFCW wishes as with the numerous other revisionists to be contentious. He is contentious, but wholly uninformative. We unfortunately have nothing to learn about TJ from him. If only one could give zero stars!

Painful but important.

A very good book for anyone interested in the specific subject of the title or Jefferson per se. The book argues that Jeffersonset in motion what would be American Indian policy. One can see that he had much the same views of the future of theIndians as Andrew Jackson, just not as crude. The future of native americans would be assimilation or destruction.

Was pleasantly surprised to find the book still in the plastic.

Many works on early United States history tend to give Indian affairs less attention than it deserves. There are two recent books with which I am familiar that help correct this situation. The first is Robert Remini's study of Jacksonian American, "Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars". The second is Professor Wallace's book on Jefferson's relationship to the Indians, which I am discussing here.Remini's and Wallace's book can be read together because both tell parts of the same sad story. Expansionist pressures from settlers and the fear of the United States of Indian attacks, particularly when incited by hostile European nations led to a policy of land cessions, wars, and forced removal westward of the Indian tribes. The process culminated with Andrew Jackson's Indian wars and presidency, the subject of Remini's book, but it was effectively put in place by Thomas Jefferson, as shown by Wallace.Jefferson and his Indian policy, however, seem to me to present a more complex case than Jackson. As Wallace's book shows, Jefferson was indeed a polymath, a scholar and intellectual as well as a, paradoxically, man of power and position. Jefferson took a genuine interest in Indian archaeology, culture and language and made himself or encouraged others to make, scholarly and enthnological contributions that are still important towards understanding the Indians.Jefferson, even on Professor Wallace's account, had compassion for the Indian tribes and an interest in their well-being, even if this interest was overshadowed, as it was, by his desire to obtain Indian land for the new nation and even though his view of Indian interests was misguided and partial.Wallace's book traces Jefferson's early relationship with Indians beginning before the revolution when Jefferson was a land speculator in the then Western United States. He explores in detail Jefferson's writing on Indians, particularly his writing on the Indian chief Logan in his "Notes on the State of Virginia." Jefferson's partial reading of the fate of this "Noble Savage", according to Wallace, shows the ambivalent character of Jefferson's approach to the Indians.Wallace describes in detail Jefferson the politician approaching Indian affairs in the original United States territory and in the Louisiana purchase, which doubled the size of the United States. The announced goals of the policy were peace, land cessions and civilization for the Indians. Too often, these policies became simply the means for tribal destruction and deprivation and for the removal policy, for both the southern and the northern tribes, that culminated in the administration of Andrew Jackson. (again, see the Remini book.)There are some fascinating quotations in the book that illustrate Wallace's points that are set aside and emphasized in blocked-type and quotes. It is a good way of gaining focus. The book has a wealth of documentation and is not simply a political history. As I indicated Jefferson was a complex individual and this book shows him, focusing on Indian affairs, in all his personal and political variety.Wallace has a clear feeling for the tragedy of the American Indian. Yet his book is balanced in tone and does not degenerate into ideological or special pleading. His opinions are stated clearly and eloquently in his introduction and conclusion and in his discussions of the events described in the text. The book has the measure of a scholar and encourages the reader to reflect for him or herself on the record.There are those who are skeptical of the public's recent interest in American History, as shown by the success of McCollough's John Adams as well as other popular historical works, on grounds that it is a new attempt to promote American exceptionalism and to avoid considering the tragedies of our past. I disagree. I think, this interest in history shows a renewed love and interest in our country with no desire to minimize its failings. Wallace's book to me shows both love of our country and a sense of one of its major tragedies.Robin Friedman