   #copyright

Pontiac's Rebellion

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: North American History

   Pontiac's Rebellion
   In a famous council on April 27, 1763, Pontiac urged listeners rise up
   against the British.

      Date    1763–1766
    Location  Great Lakes region of North America
     Result   Military stalemate; American Indians concede British sovereignty
              but compel British policy changes
   Territorial
   changes    Portage around Niagara Falls ceded by Senecas to the British
   Combatants
   British Empire American Indians
   Commanders
   Jeffrey Amherst,
   Henry Bouquet Pontiac,
   Guyasuta
   Casualties
   450 soldiers killed,
   2,000 civilians killed or captured,
   4,000 civilians displaced unknown
                         Pontiac's Rebellion
   Fort Detroit – Fort Pitt – Bloody Run – Bushy Run – Devil's Hole

   Pontiac's Rebellion was a war launched in 1763 by North American
   Indians who were dissatisfied with British rule in the Great Lakes
   region after the British victory in the French and Indian War/ Seven
   Years' War (1754–1763). The uprising, named after the Ottawa leader
   Chief Pontiac, was the first extensive multi-tribal resistance to
   European colonization in North America, and the first war between
   Europeans and American Indians that did not end in complete defeat for
   the Indians.

   The war began in May 1763 when American Indians attacked a number of
   British forts and settlements. Eight forts were destroyed, and hundreds
   of British colonists were killed or captured, with many more fleeing
   the region. Hostilities came to an end after British Army expeditions
   beginning in the summer of 1764 led to peace negotiations over the next
   two years. The war was a failure for the Indians in that it did not
   drive away the British, but the uprising prompted the British
   government to modify policies that had provoked the conflict.

   In terms of casualties and numbers of people involved, Pontiac's
   Rebellion was small by European standards of the era. Warfare on the
   North American frontier was characteristically brutal, however, and the
   killing of prisoners, the targeting of civilians, and other atrocities
   were widespread. In what is now perhaps the war's best-known incident,
   British officers at Fort Pitt attempted to infect the besieging Indians
   with blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, with uncertain
   results. This ruthlessness was a reflection of a growing racial divide
   between British colonists and American Indians. According to historian
   David Dixon, "Pontiac's War was unprecedented for its awful violence,
   as both sides seemed intoxicated with genocidal fanaticism."

Naming the conflict

   The conflict is named after its most famous participant, the Ottawa
   leader Pontiac; variations include "Pontiac's War" and "Pontiac's
   Uprising". An early name for the war was the "Kiyasuta and Pontiac
   War", "Kiaysuta" being an alternate spelling for Guyasuta, an
   influential Seneca/ Mingo leader. The war became widely known as
   "Pontiac's Conspiracy" after the publication in 1851 of Francis
   Parkman's The Conspiracy of Pontiac. Parkman's influential book, the
   definitive account of the war for nearly a century, is still in print.

   In the 20th century, a number of historians argued that Parkman
   exaggerated the extent of Pontiac's influence in the conflict, and that
   it was therefore misleading to name the war after Pontiac. For example,
   in 1988 Francis Jennings wrote: "In Francis Parkman's murky mind the
   backwoods plots emanated from one savage genius, the Ottawa chief
   Pontiac, and thus they became 'The Conspiracy of Pontiac,' but Pontiac
   was only a local Ottawa war chief in a 'resistance' involving many
   tribes...." Alternate titles for the war have been proposed, but
   historians generally continue to refer to the war by the familiar
   names, with "Pontiac's War" probably the most commonly used. "Pontiac's
   Conspiracy" is now infrequently used by scholars, although this remains
   the subject heading used by the Library of Congress.

Origins

   You think yourselves Masters of this Country, because you have taken it
          from the French, who, you know, had no Right to it, as it is the
                                                   Property of us Indians.
                                              —Nimwha, Shawnee diplomat,
                                                   to George Croghan, 1768

   In the decades before Pontiac's Rebellion, France and Great Britain
   participated in a series of wars in Europe that also involved their
   native allies and colonies in North America. The largest of these wars
   was the worldwide Seven Years' War, in which France lost New France in
   North America to Great Britain. Most fighting in the North American
   theatre of the war (sometimes called the French and Indian War) came to
   an end after British General Jeffrey Amherst captured French Montréal
   in 1760.

   British troops proceeded to occupy the various forts in the Ohio
   Country and Great Lakes region previously garrisoned by the French.
   Even before the war officially ended with the Treaty of Paris (1763),
   the British Crown began to implement changes in order to administer its
   vastly expanded North American territory. Before long, American Indians
   who had been allies of the defeated French found themselves
   increasingly dissatisfied with the British occupation and the new
   policies imposed by the victors. While the French had long cultivated
   alliances among the Indians, the British post-war approach was
   essentially to treat the Indians as a conquered people.

Tribes involved

   Indians who played a role in Pontiac's Rebellion were diverse peoples
   with differing backgrounds and agendas. Most of those who took up arms
   against the British lived in a vaguely defined region of New France
   known as the pays d'en haut ("the upper country"), which was claimed by
   France until the Paris peace treaty of 1763. The natives of the pays
   d'en haut, primarily speakers of Algonquian languages, consisted of
   three basic groups.

   The first group was the tribes of the Great Lakes region: the Ottawas,
   Ojibwas, Potawatomis, and Hurons. They had long been allied with French
   habitants, with whom they lived, traded, and intermarried. Great Lakes
   Indians valued their relationship with the French, and were stunned to
   learn that they were suddenly under British sovereignty because of the
   French loss of North America.
   The main area of action in Pontiac's Rebellion.
   Enlarge
   The main area of action in Pontiac's Rebellion.

   The second group was the tribes of the eastern Illinois Country, which
   included the Miami, Wea, Kickapoo, Mascouten, and Piankashaw. Like the
   Great Lakes tribes, these people had a long history of close relations
   with the French. Because the British military had not yet occupied most
   of the Illinois Country, which was on the western edge of the war, the
   natives in this region were less motivated to take part in the
   uprising.

   The third group was the tribes of the Ohio Country: the Delawares
   (Lenape), Shawnees, Wyandots, and Mingos. These people had migrated to
   the Ohio valley earlier in the century in order to escape British,
   French, and Iroquois domination elsewhere. Unlike the Great Lakes and
   Illinois Country tribes, Ohio natives had no great attachment to the
   French regime, and had fought alongside the French in the previous war
   only as a means of driving away the British. They made a separate peace
   with the British in the Treaty of Easton (1758) with the understanding
   that the British Army would withdraw from the Ohio Country. The
   British, however, strengthened their forts in the region rather than
   abandon them, and so the Ohio natives went to war in 1763 in another
   attempt to drive out the British.

   Outside the pays d'en haut, the influential Iroquois Confederacy
   maintained a strong relationship with the British, and mostly did not
   participate in Pontiac's War. However, the westernmost Iroquois nation,
   the Senecas, had become disaffected with the British alliance, and
   began to send out war messages to the Great Lakes and Ohio Country
   tribes as early as 1761, urging them to unite in an attempt to drive
   out the British. The first calls for the war that became Pontiac's
   Rebellion came not from Pontiac, but from Senecas south of Lake
   Ontario. When the war finally came, many Senecas were quick to take
   action.

   With the notable exception of the Iroquois Confederacy, the tribes in
   Pontiac's Rebellion were not centralized political entities. At this
   time and place, tribe designated a linguistic or ethnic group. Indians
   of the pays d'en haut lived in scattered, autonomous villages; no chief
   spoke for an entire tribe, and no tribe acted in unison. For example,
   Ottawas did not go to war as a tribe: a number of Ottawa war leaders
   chose to do so, while some other Ottawa leaders denounced the war and
   stayed clear of the conflict.

Amherst's Indian policy

   A British hero of the Seven Years' War, General Jeffrey Amherst's
   postwar policies helped to provoke another war.
   Enlarge
   A British hero of the Seven Years' War, General Jeffrey Amherst's
   postwar policies helped to provoke another war.

   General Amherst was in overall charge of administering British policy
   towards American Indians, which involved both military matters as well
   as regulation of the fur trade. Amherst believed that with France out
   of the picture, the Indians would have no other choice than to accept
   British rule. He also believed that the Indians were incapable of
   offering any serious resistance to the British Army, and therefore, of
   the 8,000 troops under his command in North America, only about 500
   were stationed in the region where the war erupted. Amherst and
   officers such as Major Henry Gladwin, commander at Fort Detroit, made
   little effort to conceal their contempt for the natives. Indians
   involved in the uprising frequently complained that the British treated
   them no better than slaves or dogs.

   Additional Indian resentment resulted from Amherst's order, in February
   1761, to cut back on the gifts traditionally given to the Indians. Gift
   giving had been an integral part of the relationship between the French
   and the tribes of the pays d'en haut. Following an American Indian
   custom which carried important symbolic meaning, the French gave
   presents (such as guns, knives, and clothing) to village chiefs, who in
   turn redistributed these gifts to their people. By this process, the
   village chiefs gained stature among their people, and were thus able to
   maintain the alliance with the French. Amherst, however, considered
   this process to be a form of bribery that was no longer necessary,
   especially since he was under pressure to cut expenses after the war
   with France. Many Indians regarded this change in policy as a insult as
   well as an indication that the British looked upon them as conquered
   people rather than as allies.

   Amherst also began to restrict the amount of ammunition and gunpowder
   that traders could sell to Indians. While the French had always made
   these supplies available, Amherst did not trust the Indians,
   particularly after the Anglo-Cherokee War of 1761, in which Cherokee
   warriors took up arms against their former British allies. The Cherokee
   war effort had collapsed because of a shortage of gunpowder; Amherst
   hoped that limiting supplies would prevent future uprisings. Gunpowder
   and ammunition were essential to the Indians, however, because males
   hunted in order to provide food for their families and to procure skins
   for the fur trade. Many American Indians began to believe that the
   British were disarming them as a prelude to making war upon them. Sir
   William Johnson, the Superintendent of the Indian Department, tried to
   warn Amherst of the dangers of cutting back on presents and gunpowder,
   to no avail.

Land and religion

   Land was also an issue in the coming of the war. While the French
   colonists had always been relatively few in number, there seemed to be
   no end of settlers in the British colonies. Shawnees and Delawares in
   the Ohio Country had been displaced by British colonists in the east,
   and this motivated their involvement in the war. On the other hand,
   Indians in the Great Lakes region and the Illinois Country had not been
   greatly affected by white settlement, although they were aware of the
   experiences of tribes in the east. Historian Gregory Dowd argues that
   most American Indians involved in Pontiac's Rebellion were not
   immediately threatened with displacement by white settlers, and that
   historians have therefore overemphasized British colonial expansion as
   a cause of the war. Dowd believes that the presence, attitude, and
   policies of the British Army, which the Indians found threatening and
   insulting, were much more important factors.

   Also contributing to the outbreak of war was a religious awakening
   which swept through Indian settlements in the early 1760s. The movement
   was fed by discontent with the British as well as food shortages and
   epidemic disease. The most influential individual in this phenomenon
   was Neolin, known as the "Delaware Prophet", who called upon Indians to
   shun the trade goods, alcohol, and weapons of the whites. Merging
   elements from Christianity into traditional religious beliefs, Neolin
   told listeners that the Master of Life was displeased with the Indians
   for taking up the bad habits of the white men, and that the British
   posed a threat to their very existence. "If you suffer the English
   among you," said Neolin, "you are dead men. Sickness, smallpox, and
   their poison [alcohol] will destroy you entirely." It was a powerful
   message for a people whose world was changing by forces that seemed to
   be beyond their control.

Outbreak of war, 1763

   Pontiac has often been imagined by artists, as in this 19th century
   painting by John Mix Stanley, but no authentic portraits are known to
   exist.
   Enlarge
   Pontiac has often been imagined by artists, as in this 19th century
   painting by John Mix Stanley, but no authentic portraits are known to
   exist.

   Although fighting in Pontiac's Rebellion began in 1763, as early as
   1761 British officials had heard rumors that discontented American
   Indians were planning a surprise attack. Senecas of the Ohio Country
   (Mingos) were circulating messages ("war belts" made of wampum) which
   called for the tribes to form a confederacy and drive away the British.
   The Mingos, led by Guyasuta and Tahaiadoris, were concerned about being
   surrounded by British forts. Similar war belts originated from Detroit
   and the Illinois Country. The Indians were not unified, however, and
   Sir William Johnson's diplomatic efforts helped to maintain a tenuous
   peace. Violence finally erupted after the Indians learned in early 1763
   of the imminent French cession of the pays d'en haut to the British.

   The war began at Fort Detroit under the local leadership of Pontiac,
   and quickly spread throughout the region. Eight British forts were
   taken; others, including Fort Detroit and Fort Pitt, were
   unsuccessfully besieged. Francis Parkman's The Conspiracy of Pontiac
   portrayed these attacks as a coordinated operation planned in advance
   by Pontiac. Parkman's interpretation remains well known, but other
   historians have since argued that there is no clear evidence that the
   attacks were part of a single master plan. They argue that it is more
   likely that that the war evolved spontaneously, with Pontiac's actions
   at Detroit inspiring other discontented Indians to attack the British.
   Most Ohio Indians, for example, did not enter the war until about a
   month after the beginning of Pontiac's siege. Because of the war belts
   that had been circulating, Pontiac knew that he was a part of a wider
   movement, but his personal leadership did not extend beyond the Detroit
   region.

   Parkman also asserted that Pontiac's War had been secretly instigated
   by French colonists who were stirring up the Indians in order to make
   trouble for the British. This belief was widely held by British
   officials at the time, but there is no evidence of official French
   involvement in the uprising. (The rumor of French instigation arose in
   part because French war belts from the Seven Years' War were still in
   circulation in some Indian villages.) Rather than the French stirring
   up the Indians, some historians now argue that the Indians were trying
   to stir up the French. Pontiac and other native leaders frequently
   spoke of the imminent return of French power and the revival of the
   Franco-Indian alliance; Pontiac even flew a French flag in his village.
   All of this was apparently intended to inspire the French to rejoin the
   struggle against the British. Although some French colonists and
   traders supported the uprising, the war was initiated and conducted by
   American Indians who had Indian—not French—objectives.

Siege of Fort Detroit

   On April 27, 1763, Pontiac spoke at a council about 10 miles below the
   settlement of Detroit. Using the teachings of Neolin to inspire his
   listeners, Pontiac convinced a number of Ottawas, Ojibwas, Potawatomis,
   and Hurons to join him in an attempt to seize Fort Detroit. According
   to a French chronicler, Pontiac proclaimed:

     It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our
     lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us. You see as well as
     I that we can no longer supply our needs, as we have done from our
     brothers, the French.... Therefore, my brothers, we must all swear
     their destruction and wait no longer. Nothing prevents us; they are
     few in numbers, and we can accomplish it.

   On May 7, Pontiac entered the fort with about 300 men who were carrying
   concealed weapons, hoping to take the stronghold by surprise. The
   British had learned of Pontiac's plan, however, and were armed and
   ready. His strategy foiled, Pontiac withdrew after a brief council and,
   two days later, laid siege to the fort. A number of British soldiers
   and civilians in the area outside the fort were captured or killed; one
   of the soldiers was ritually cannibalized, as was the custom in some
   Great Lakes Indian cultures. The violence was directed only at the
   British: French colonists were generally left alone. Eventually more
   than 900 warriors from a half-dozen tribes joined the siege.
   Forts and battles of Pontiac's War
   Enlarge
   Forts and battles of Pontiac's War

   After receiving reinforcements, the British attempted to make a
   surprise attack on Pontiac's encampment. Pontiac was ready and waiting,
   however, and defeated them at the Battle of Bloody Run on July 31,
   1763. Nevertheless, the situation at Fort Detroit remained a stalemate,
   and Pontiac's influence among his followers began to wane. Groups of
   Indians began to abandon the siege, some of them making peace with the
   British before departing. On October 31, 1763, finally convinced that
   the French in Illinois would not come to his aid, Pontiac lifted the
   siege and removed to the Maumee River, where he continued his efforts
   to rally resistance against the British.

Small forts taken

   Before word had spread to other British outposts of Pontiac's siege at
   Detroit, Indians captured five small forts in a series of attacks
   between May 16 and June 2. The first fort to be taken was Fort
   Sandusky, on the shore of Lake Erie. The small blockhouse had been
   built in 1761 by order of General Amherst, despite the objections of
   local Indians, who regarded it as a threat. On May 16, 1763, a group of
   Wyandots gained entry to the fort under the pretense of holding a
   council, the same stratagem that had failed in Detroit nine days
   earlier. They seized the commander and killed the fifteen-man garrison.
   A number of British traders were put to death as well, and the fort was
   burned.

   Fort St. Joseph (on the site of the present Niles, Michigan) was
   captured on May 25, 1763 by the same method as at Sandusky. The
   commander was seized by Potawatomis, and most of the fifteen-man
   garrison was killed outright. Fort Miami (on the site of present Fort
   Wayne, Indiana) was the third fort to fall. On May 27, 1763, the
   commander was lured out of the fort by his Indian mistress and shot
   dead by Miami Indians. The nine-man garrison surrendered after the fort
   was surrounded.

   In the Illinois Country, Fort Ouiatenon (about 5 miles southwest of
   present Lafayette, Indiana) was taken by Weas, Kickapoos, and
   Mascoutens on June 1, 1763. Soldiers were lured outside for a council,
   and the entire twenty-man garrison was taken captive without bloodshed.
   The warriors apologized to the commander for taking the fort, saying
   that "they were Obliged to do it by the other Nations."

   The fifth fort to fall, Fort Michilimackinac (present Mackinaw City,
   Michigan), was the largest fort taken by surprise. On June 4, 1763,
   local Ojibwas staged a game of stickball (a forerunner of lacrosse)
   with visiting Sauks. The soldiers watched the game, as they had done on
   previous occasions. The ball was hit through the open gate of the fort;
   the teams rushed in and were then handed weapons previously smuggled
   into the fort by Indian women. About fifteen men of the 35 man garrison
   were killed in the struggle; five more were later executed.

   Three forts in the Ohio Country were taken in a second wave of attacks
   in mid-June. Fort Venango (near the site of the present Franklin,
   Pennsylvania) was taken around June 16, 1763 by Senecas. The entire
   twelve-man garrison was killed outright, except for the commander, who
   was made to write down the grievances of the Senecas; he was then
   burned at the stake. Fort Le Boeuf (on the site of Waterford,
   Pennsylvania) was attacked on June 18, possibly by the same Senecas who
   had destroyed Fort Venango. Most of the twelve-man garrison escaped to
   Fort Pitt. The eighth and final fort to fall, Fort Presque Isle (on the
   site of Erie, Pennsylvania), was surrounded by about 250 Ottawas,
   Ojibwas, Wyandots, and Senecas on June 19, 1763. After holding out for
   two days, the garrison of approximately sixty men surrendered on the
   condition that they could return to Fort Pitt. Most were instead killed
   after emerging from the fort.

Siege of Fort Pitt

   Fort Pitt, with a garrison of 330 men (and over 200 women and children
   inside), was attacked on June 22, 1763, primarily by Delaware (Lenape)
   Indians. Too strong to be taken by force, the fort was kept under siege
   throughout July. Meanwhile, Delaware and Shawnee war parties raided
   deep into the Pennsylvania settlements, taking captives and killing
   unknown numbers of men, women, and children who were living on what was
   Indian land a generation earlier. Panicked settlers fled eastwards.

   For General Amherst, who before the war had dismissed the possibility
   that the Indians would offer any effective resistance to British rule,
   the military situation over the summer became increasingly grim. He
   wrote his subordinates, instructing them that captured enemy Indians
   should "immediately be put to death". To Colonel Henry Bouquet at
   Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who was preparing to lead an expedition to
   relieve Fort Pitt, Amherst made the following proposal on about 29 June
   1763: "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the
   disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every
   stratagem in our power to reduce them."

   Bouquet agreed, replying to Amherst on 13 July 1763: "I will try to
   inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their
   hands, and take care not to get the disease myself." Amherst responded
   favorably on 16 July 1763: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians
   by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to
   extirpate this execrable race."

   As it turned out, however, officers at the besieged Fort Pitt had
   already attempted to do what Amherst and Bouquet were still discussing,
   apparently without having been ordered to do so by Amherst or Bouquet.
   During a parley at Fort Pitt on 24 June 1763, the commander at Fort
   Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a
   handkerchief that had been exposed to smallpox, hoping to spread the
   disease to the Indians in order to end the siege. This was not the
   first time that a crude form of biological warfare had been attempted
   in the region: in 1761, American Indians had attempted to poison the
   well at Fort Ligonier using an animal carcass.

   It is uncertain whether or not the British attempt to infect the
   Indians with smallpox was successful. Many American Indians died from
   smallpox during Pontiac's Rebellion, and so some historians have
   concluded that the attempt was successful. Many scholars now doubt that
   conclusion, however. One reason is that the outbreak of smallpox among
   the Ohio Indians apparently preceded the blanket incident. Furthermore,
   the Indians outside Fort Pitt kept up the siege for more than a month
   after receiving the infected blankets, apparently unaffected by any
   outbreak of disease. (The two Delaware chiefs who handled the infected
   blankets were in good health a month later as well.) And finally,
   because the disease was already in the area, it may have reached Indian
   villages through a number of vectors. Eyewitnesses reported that native
   warriors contracted the disease after attacking infected white
   settlements, and they may have spread the disease upon their return
   home. For these reasons, historian David Dixon concludes that "the
   Indians may well have received the dreaded disease from a number of
   sources, but infected blankets from Fort Pitt was not one of them."

Bushy Run and Devil's Hole

   Charge of the Highlanders at the Battle of Bushy Run.
   Enlarge
   Charge of the Highlanders at the Battle of Bushy Run.

   On August 1, 1763, most of the Indians broke off the siege at Fort Pitt
   in order to intercept a body of 500 British troops marching to the fort
   under Colonel Bouquet. On August 5, these two forces met at the Battle
   of Bushy Run. Although his force suffered heavy casualties, Bouquet
   fought off the attack and relieved Fort Pitt on August 20, bringing the
   siege to an end. His victory at Bushy Run was celebrated in the British
   colonies—church bells rang through the night in Philadelphia—and
   praised by King George.

   The British Army victory was soon followed by a costly defeat, however.
   Fort Niagara, one of the most important western forts, was not
   assaulted, but on September 14, 1763 at least 300 Senecas, Ottawas, and
   Ojibwas attacked a supply train along the Niagara Falls portage. Two
   companies sent from Fort Niagara to rescue the supply train were also
   defeated. About seventy-two soldiers and wagoners were killed in these
   actions (estimates vary), which Anglo-Americans called the " Devil's
   Hole Massacre", the deadliest engagement for British soldiers during
   the war.

Paxton Boys and continued raids

   Massacre of the Indians at Lancaster by the Paxton Boys in 1763,
   lithograph published in Events in Indian History (John Wimer, 1841).
   Enlarge
   Massacre of the Indians at Lancaster by the Paxton Boys in 1763,
   lithograph published in Events in Indian History (John Wimer, 1841).

   The violence and terror of Pontiac's War convinced many western
   Pennsylvanians that their government was not doing enough to protect
   them. This discontent was manifest most seriously in an uprising led by
   a vigilante group that came to be known as the Paxton Boys, so-called
   because they were primarily from the area around the Pennsylvania
   village of Paxton (or Paxtang).

   The Paxtonians turned their anger towards American Indians—many of them
   Christians—who lived peacefully in small enclaves in the midst of white
   Pennsylvania settlements. Prompted by rumors that an Indian war party
   had been seen at the Indian village of Conestoga, on December 14, 1763
   a group of more than fifty Paxton Boys marched on the village and
   murdered the six Susquehannocks they found there. The remaining
   fourteen Susquehannocks were placed in protective custody in Lancaster
   in order to protect them from the Paxton mob. This failed: on December
   27, Paxton Boys broke into the workhouse at Lancaster and brutally
   slaughtered them. Governor John Penn issued bounties for the arrest of
   the murderers, but no one came forward to identify them.

   The Paxton Boys then set their sights on other Indians living within
   eastern Pennsylvania, many of whom fled to Philadelphia for protection.
   Several hundred Paxtonians then marched on Philadelphia in January
   1764, where the presence of British troops and Philadelphia militia
   prevented them from doing more violence. Benjamin Franklin, who had
   helped organize the local militia, negotiated with the Paxton leaders
   and brought an end to the immediate crisis.

   American Indian raids on frontier settlements escalated in the spring
   and summer of 1764. On May 26 near Fort Cumberland (Maryland), 15
   whites working in a field were killed. On June 14, around 13 settlers
   near Fort Loudoun (Pennsylvania) were killed and their homes burned.
   The most notorious raid of this type occurred on July 26, when four
   Delaware warriors killed and scalped a school teacher and ten children
   in what is now Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Incidents such as these
   prompted the Pennsylvania Assembly, with the approval of Governor Penn,
   to reintroduce the scalp bounties previously offered during the French
   and Indian War, which paid money for every enemy Indian killed above
   the age of ten, including women.

British response, 1764–1766

   After 1763, major combat in Pontiac's War was effectively over,
   although raids against settlers had continued into the following year.
   American Indians had won a number of victories in 1763, but the large
   forts remained in British hands. Civilians had been driven from the
   region by the thousands, but the military conflict was a stalemate.

   General Amherst, held responsible for the uprising by the Board of
   Trade, was recalled to London in August 1763. He was replaced by Major
   General Thomas Gage, who paid more attention to William Johnson's
   advice regarding Indian policy. There was a shift in overall approach,
   as Gage and Johnson worked to bring an end to the conflict through
   diplomatic as well as military means. Having failed to drive out the
   British, many Indian leaders were also ready to negotiate, especially
   since they were running low on ammunition and were weakened by disease.

Fort Niagara treaty

   From July to August 1764, Johnson conducted a treaty at Fort Niagara
   with about 2,000 Indians in attendance, primarily Iroquois. Although
   most Iroquois had stayed out of the war, Senecas from the Genesee River
   valley had taken up arms against the British, and Johnson worked to
   bring them back into the Covenant Chain alliance. As restitution for
   the Devil's Hole ambush, the Senecas were compelled to cede the
   strategically important Niagara portage to the British. Johnson even
   convinced the Iroquois to send a war party against the Ohio Indians.
   This Iroquois expedition captured a number of Delawares and destroyed
   abandoned Delaware and Shawnee towns in the Susquehanna Valley, but
   otherwise the Iroquois did not contribute to the war effort as much as
   Johnson had desired.

Expeditions of Bradstreet and Bouquet

   Bouquet's negotiations are depicted in this 1766 engraving based on a
   painting by Benjamin West. The Indian orator holds a belt of wampum in
   his hand, essential for diplomacy in the Eastern Woodlands.
   Enlarge
   Bouquet's negotiations are depicted in this 1766 engraving based on a
   painting by Benjamin West. The Indian orator holds a belt of wampum in
   his hand, essential for diplomacy in the Eastern Woodlands.

   Having secured the area around Fort Niagara, the British launched two
   military expeditions into the west. The first expedition, led by
   Colonel John Bradstreet, was to travel by boat across Lake Erie and
   reinforce Detroit. Bradstreet was to subdue the Indians around Detroit
   before marching south into the Ohio Country. The second expedition,
   commanded by Colonel Bouquet, was to march west from Fort Pitt and form
   a second front in the Ohio Country.

   Bradstreet set out from Fort Schlosser in early August 1764 with about
   1,200 soldiers and a large contingent of Indian allies enlisted by
   William Johnson. Bradstreet felt that he did not have enough troops to
   subdue enemy Indians by force, so when strong winds on Lake Erie forced
   him to stop at Presque Isle on August 12, he decided to negotiate a
   treaty with a delegation of Ohio Indians led by Guyasuta. Bradstreet
   exceeded his authority by conducting a peace treaty rather than a
   simple truce, and by agreeing to halt Bouquet's expedition, which had
   not yet left Fort Pitt. Gage, Johnson, and Bouquet were outraged when
   they learned what Bradstreet had done. Gage rejected the treaty,
   believing that Bradstreet had been duped into abandoning his offensive
   in the Ohio Country. Gage may have been correct: the Ohio Indians did
   not return prisoners as promised in a second meeting with Bradstreet in
   September, and some Shawnees were trying to enlist French aid in order
   to continue the war.

   Bradstreet continued westward, as yet unaware that his unauthorized
   diplomacy was angering his superiors. He reached Fort Detroit on August
   26, where he negotiated another treaty. In an attempt to discredit
   Pontiac, who was not present, Bradstreet chopped up a peace belt the
   Ottawa leader had sent to the meeting. According to historian Richard
   White, "such an act, roughly equivalent to a European ambassador's
   urinating on a proposed treaty, had shocked and offended the gathered
   Indians." Bradstreet also claimed that the Indians had accepted British
   sovereignty as a result of his negotiations, but Johnson believed that
   this had not been fully explained to the Indians and that further
   councils would be needed. Although Bradstreet had successfully
   reinforced and reoccupied British forts in the region, his diplomacy
   proved to be controversial and inconclusive.
   Because many children taken as captives had been adopted into Indian
   families, their forced return often resulted in emotional scenes, as
   shown in this 1765 engraving based on a painting by Benjamin West.
   Enlarge
   Because many children taken as captives had been adopted into Indian
   families, their forced return often resulted in emotional scenes, as
   shown in this 1765 engraving based on a painting by Benjamin West.

   Colonel Bouquet, delayed in Pennsylvania while mustering the militia,
   finally set out from Fort Pitt on October 3, 1764, with 1,150 men. He
   marched to the Muskingum River in the Ohio Country, within striking
   distance of a number of native villages. Now that treaties had been
   negotiated at Fort Niagara and Fort Detroit, the Ohio Indians were
   isolated and, with some exceptions, ready to make peace. In a council
   which began on 17 October, Bouquet demanded that the Ohio Indians
   return all captives, including those not yet returned from the French
   and Indian War. Guyasuta and other leaders reluctantly handed over more
   than 200 captives, many of whom had been adopted into Indian families.
   Because not all of the captives were present, the Indians were
   compelled to surrender hostages as a guarantee that the other captives
   would be returned. The Ohio Indians agreed to attend a more formal
   peace conference with William Johnson, which was finalized in July
   1765.

Treaty with Pontiac

   In 1765 the British decided that the occupation of the former French
   forts further west in the Illinois Country could only be accomplished
   by diplomatic—not military—means. Johnson's deputy George Croghan
   traveled to the Illinois Country that summer, and although he was
   injured along the way in an attack by Kickapoo and Mascouten warriors,
   he managed to meet and negotiate with Pontiac. British officials were
   under the mistaken notion that Pontiac had more power than he actually
   possessed; paradoxically, by making Pontiac the focus of their
   diplomatic efforts, they greatly increased his stature. Pontiac, now
   certain that the French would not come to his aid, agreed to travel to
   New York, where he made a more formal treaty with William Johnson on 25
   July 1766 at Fort Ontario. It was hardly a surrender: no lands were
   ceded, no prisoners returned, and no hostages were taken.

Legacy

   The total loss of life resulting from Pontiac's Rebellion is unknown.
   About 450 British soldiers were killed in the fighting; no reliable
   figures exist for the number of American Indian losses. The violence
   compelled approximately 4,000 white settlers from Pennsylvania and
   Virginia to flee their homes. George Croghan estimated that 2,000 white
   settlers had been killed or captured, a figure that has often been
   repeated as 2,000 settlers killed. Gregory Dowd writes that Croghan's
   figure "cannot be taken seriously" because the estimate was a "wild
   guess" made by Croghan while he was in London. Historian Daniel Richter
   characterizes Pontiac's War, as well as the actions of the Paxton Boys,
   as examples of ethnic cleansing.

   On October 7, 1763, the British government issued the Royal
   Proclamation of 1763. It is sometimes written that the Proclamation was
   a response to Pontiac's War, but this is only partially correct. The
   proclamation was part of an effort to reorganize British North America
   after the Treaty of Paris, and the policies contained in the
   proclamation were already in the works when Pontiac's War erupted. The
   outbreak of the war hastened the process.

   The most significant aspect of the proclamation was that it drew a
   boundary line between the British colonies and American Indian lands
   west of the Appalachians. Some Crown officials wanted to limit colonial
   westward expansion because expansion threatened to undermine the
   Empire's economic relationship with the colonies. Others wanted the
   colonies to expand, but in a more peaceful and orderly fashion. These
   expansionists supported a boundary line in order to temporarily halt
   westward migration until a better expansion policy could be devised—one
   that would not provoke expensive wars with American Indians.

   British colonists and land speculators generally resented the
   Proclamation of 1763 because many of the colonies had extensive land
   claims in the west. Many landless colonists hoped to settle in the west
   themselves, and land speculators (including some in Great Britain)
   looked upon the west as a source of potential wealth. Although the
   success of the British Empire in the Seven Years' War was a source of
   pride for many in the British colonies, the proclamation served to
   undermine colonial attachment to the Empire.

   In the coming years, many in the colonies resisted the new taxation
   that was imposed by the Crown—taxes that were intended to pay for the
   wars that had been fought to secure North America for the British
   Empire. Royal officials regarded the colonists as ungrateful for
   refusing to help pay for the army that had protected them during the
   "Indian uprising." Pontiac's War and the Proclamation of 1763 were thus
   contributing factors to the coming of the American Revolution.

   After the American Revolutionary War, the Royal Proclamation of 1763
   became a dead letter in the United States, but continued to govern the
   cession of aboriginal land in British North America, especially Upper
   Canada and Rupert's Land. The proclamation forms the basis of land
   claims of aboriginal peoples in Canada ( First Nations, Inuit, and
   Métis).

   For North American Indians, Pontiac's War demonstrated the
   possibilities of pan-tribal cooperation to repel Anglo-American
   colonial expansion. Subsequent leaders such as Joseph Brant, Alexander
   McGillivray, Blue Jacket, and Tecumseh would attempt to forge
   confederacies that would revive the resistance efforts of Pontiac's
   War.
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_Rebellion"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
