Clash of Monarchies: Queen Anne's War

Many people today have an astounding ignorance of their own history. Glorying in themselves they are nonetheless completely disconnected from what it was that made them who they are and how the world we know today came to be. In the United States this is reflected by how relatively little attention is given to colonial history. Thorough studies of history tend to start with the creation of the United States of America and follows the story from there. However, this was, obviously, the culmination of the earlier colonial history of North America and one cannot understand how modern America came to be what it is now without understanding that colonial period. Had things gone differently in the days of the North American colonies of Britain, France and Spain there might not be a United States or, if there had been, it might be populated by a totally different people with a different legal system, a different language and so on. One of the often overlooked periods which illustrates this point was Queen Anne’s War.

Queen Anne, King Louis XIV & King Philip V

What is known in America as Queen Anne’s War is known in Europe as the War of Spanish Succession. The last Hapsburg King of Spain had died and King Louis XIV of France put forward a grandson of his to be the first of a new line of Bourbon monarchs for the throne of Spain. This caused a great deal of opposition. The Hapsburg Emperor Leopold I wanted to maintain his own dynasty on the Spanish throne or at least to retain certain Spanish possessions, particularly in northern Italy, for the Austrian Hapsburgs and other powers such as the British under Queen Anne were concerned that this Bourbon proposal would effectively make Spain and the whole Spanish empire a subsidiary of the Kingdom of France. The British, Dutch and a few others feared this would make France far too powerful and thus a threat to their own security and interests. So it was that the powers of Europe formed up into two warring camps, the most prominent players being France and Spain on one side and Austria and Britain on the other.

Of course, war in Europe also meant war in America for the colonial subjects of Britain, France and Spain. Since it occurred during the reign of Queen Anne, the conflict was known among the British colonists as “Queen Anne’s War”. Even though the colonial footholds of the various European powers were still rather small at the time it all kicked off in 1702 there was, nonetheless, a rivalry over who would ultimately come to dominate the North American continent. The outbreak of Queen Anne’s War saw the British colonies having more strength at hand than their enemies, British settlement being more rapid and widespread than the French or even the Spanish, at least in North America but the British colonies also had weaknesses of their own. They were potentially surrounded by enemies and with the French and Spanish working together against them, there was a real fear that the colonies of the British Crown might be thrown off the continent altogether at worst or at least be severely restricted to a small strip of the east coast.

In looking at the opposing forces one thing which must be kept in mind is that the Europeans in general were still a small minority of the American population at the time. Somewhat like the Franco-British rivalry in the subcontinent of India, the bulk of most of the fighting forces who participated in Queen Anne’s War would be Native Americans as both the British and the Franco-Spanish factions tried to enlist American Indians to their cause and to encourage them to attack the other side. This also represents a pivotal moment in American history since many of the most advanced Indian tribes did their best to remain neutral in the conflict. Given the circumstances, and the benefit of hindsight, we can see that if some of these powerful native forces had not held themselves aloof but firmly taken a side it might have considerably altered the course of American history and had a significant impact on the eventual fate of the American Indians of the eastern seaboard in particular.

Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville

The war began in America in the south on battlegrounds that many people have crossed since, totally unaware that the ground they walk so casually on was once the setting of a vicious struggle for the control of a continent. The Spanish had long been established in Florida but in 1702 were increasingly alarmed by the growing presence of the British in what is now South Carolina after the establishment of the port city of Charleston. The British, likewise, were concerned by the possibility of the Spanish in Florida joining forces with the French in Mobile, Alabama to attack them from the south. Such concerns were well justified as the noted French explorer, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, had proposed just such an action which he termed the “Project sur la Caroline” which involved uniting the various Indians tribes of the region into a massive offensive to wipe out the southern British colonists. This was a matter of long-standing regional rivalry and had nothing to do with the argument over the Spanish throne in Europe and a campaign to put this project into effect was launched before the war in Europe actually began.

Iberville, in Mobile, had cultivated good relations with the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Natchez and other nearby Indian nations for this very purpose and when France and Spain, previously rivals, found themselves on the same side Iberville approached the Spanish authorities about arming the Apalachee Indians to attack the British in South Carolina. The plan was approved and a Spanish-led expedition under Francisco Romo de Uriza set out in August of 1702 from Pensacola, Florida to strike at British trade posts in the Carolina backcountry. The British Governor of South Carolina, James Moore, was fairly well informed about these plots and had time to organize an effective defense. In October a force of about 400 mostly Creek Indians with a handful of British under Anthony Dodsworth ambushed the Spanish-led force of about 800 Apalachee Indians at the Battle of Flint River in what is now western Georgia. It was a sweeping victory for the British and Creeks with more than half of the Spanish-Apalachee army being killed or captured.

Spanish artillery in Castillo de San Marcos

Governor Moore decided to take the fight to the enemy and, with the benefit of war having broken out officially, organized a counter-offensive against the Spanish port at St Augustine, Florida. This resulted in the siege of St Augustine, one of the major actions of the war when Governor Moore with (estimates vary) a little over a thousand British and allied Indians (Yamasee, Alabama and Tallapoosa) besieged St Augustine on November 10, 1702. The British were successful in their approach and Spanish resistance was mostly limited to small but hard fought rear guard actions. The Spanish commander, Governor Jose de Zuniga y la Cerda had only a little over 200 professional soldiers plus all able bodied men of 1,500 civilians conscripted into service. However, he learned from two enemy prisoners, captured early on, that Governor Moore had not brought a great deal of supplies with him and was armed only with light artillery. This made the Spanish confident that they could withstand a siege until help arrived from Pensacola, Cuba or from the French at Mobile.

The Spanish Governor was right and the few light field pieces that Governor Moore had brought did very little damage at all to the thick stone walls of Castillo de San Marcos (recently built just for this very possibility of an attack out of Charleston). A Spanish relief force from Cuba arrived first and Governor Moore was forced to abandon the siege on December 30. Casualties were light all around but the immense cost of the failed expedition cost Moore his governorship whereas the Spanish governor received thanks and a promotion from the new Bourbon King of Spain Philip V. However, the Spanish had not seen the last of James Moore but, for the time being, the focus of the war shifted to the north. 1702 saw British naval forces under Commodore John Leake attack French  villages on Newfoundland around Plaisance. Not unlike today this was an area that was home to a major fishing industry and it was much more economically important in those days and France and Britain would struggle for control of Newfoundland throughout the war. Closer to the bulk of the English-speaking population was the threat to New England. As with the Georgia-Florida frontier in the south, the boundary between French and British territory in the north was ill-defined. Each side claimed much but seizing it and holding it was what really mattered. In the absence of a large population of settlers, this meant that the key was winning the friendship of the natives.

Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville

The French, being very much lacking in settlers compared to the British, were, by necessity, always a little more aggressive in this regard than their English-speaking counterparts and had worked hard to forge friendly ties with the powerful Wabanaki Confederacy (covering parts of what is now Maine, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec). Throughout 1703 the French governor of Acadia, Michel Leneuf de la Valliere de Beaubassin led about 500 natives from the Confederacy with a handful of French-Canadian militiamen in a series of raids against the British colonies in New England. It would not be possible to relate the details of this entire campaign but it almost wiped out Maine for good and resulted in huge tracts of land being destroyed and hundreds of people being massacred or taken captive (men were generally killed, women and children were often as not taken as captives). The human cost, which measured in the hundreds, may not seem like much today but, given the sparse population of the time, it was immense and had a major impact.

Major Ben Church

This was followed up, in early 1704, by significant raid led by Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville with about 300 men (250 Indians and 50 French, give or take) against Deerfield in the Massachusetts Bay colony. The town was completely destroyed, most of the colonists being killed other than the roughly 100 who were taken captive and brought to a Caughnawaga village near Montreal where most were sold to the Mohawk. Unlike the offensive in Maine (then a detached part of Massachusetts), the Deerfield raid hit closer to home for the British settlers and prompted retaliation. It was simply impossible to defend every frontier cabin and small village with the colonial militia and so, it was reasoned, the only option was to strike at the French in Acadia who were inciting the Indians against them. Major Benjamin Church led a group of roughly 500 militia, including a smattering of Indians allied with the British and raided several French and Indian settlements in what is now Nova Scotia in the summer of 1704. Though perhaps not much remembered today it was Church who established the first foundations of “special forces” later made famous by Robert Rogers from whom the modern U.S. Army Rangers honor as their originator.

It was also in 1704 that the war heated up again in the south as the former Governor of South Carolina, James Moore went on a rampage. His costly invasion of Florida which had failed to take St Augustine from the Spanish was highly unpopular and he found himself out of a job but still determined to take the fight to the enemy. To put a stop to Spanish efforts to unite the southern Indian tribes against the British, Moore set out on a raid aimed at the total devastation of these tribes, particularly the Apalachee who were allied with the French & Spanish. Fighting only one battle, he encountered little resistance and his raid was brutal but effective, breaking the power of the Spanish in the region and bringing British control right up to the Franco-Spanish presence in Florida and the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, making Pensacola and Mobile vulnerable to British or, more likely, British-backed Indian attacks. Moore himself claimed to have killed over a thousand natives of all varieties and taken away as captives many more. The Spanish presence, centered on the numerous missions established in the region, was wiped out and the Indian population that survived was forced to relocate or shift allegiance to Britain.

Col. James Moore on a pillaging expedition

It was an ugly business to be sure but probably not as bad as the official accounts suggest. Moore likely embellished his “body count” to boost his image as a ‘slayer of savages’ and most of those taken captive probably went willingly as they naturally tended to take the side of whoever was strongest in the region. The Spanish had failed to protect them and so they would go with the English. In any event, as winter came on the focus of the war shifted back to the north where the British colonists were trying to do something in response to the numerous French and Indian raids on their territory. In the winter of 1705 some 275 American/British colonial militia under Colonel Winthrop Hilton raided and sacked the village of Rale where they had hoped to catch a French Catholic priest who had been blamed for instigating the Indians against them. Rale was destroyed but the priest had been alerted and escaped capture. Meanwhile, throughout the year forces of France and the Wabanaki Confederacy continued their attacks on British settlers, particularly in northern Massachusetts. Counter-raids were launched but these usually accomplished nothing as the French forces were based too far away.

Daniel d'Auger de Subercase

Meanwhile, there seemed to be a climax building in the struggle for Newfoundland. In retaliation for the previous English attack, the French and their local Indian allies hit back and in February of 1705 besieged Ft William at the English town of St John’s. The French Governor of Plaisance, Daniel d’Auger de Subercase, led about 450 French/Canadians and Indians of the Mikmak and Abenakis tribes while inside Ft William the British Lieutenant John Moody had only about 50 or 60 men under his command. An effort to take the fort by surprise failed and the siege was just as miserable, if not more so, for the French than for the British who held out quite well. Subercase tried various tricks to undermine his enemy but the harsh winter was ultimately the decisive factor. Waiting for naval support that never arrived, the French were forced to abandon the siege in March and fall back with their captured loot. Down but certainly not out, the French and Indians simply returned to raiding English settlements on the island.

The bloodshed in Newfoundland continued into 1706 when the British retaliated by sending a Royal Navy task force to destroy the French fishing industry on the north coast. The most critical action of the year though, would be in the south where the Spanish launched another offensive, more serious this time, aimed at Charleston, South Carolina itself. A Franco-Spanish attack force, primarily organized and funded by King Louis XIV, assembled in Havana, Cuba, departed for St Augustine, Florida where they picked up reinforcements and then proceeded to Charleston, arriving in September. The force consisted of 330 French & Spanish regular troops, 200 Spanish militia and about 50 Indians carried by six privateers. Again, the primary instigator of the operation was d’Iberville who received permission for the offensive from King Louis XIV late the previous year but, while the King dispatched some troops, he required d’Iberville to front most of the money for the expedition. However, most of his forces had been used to attack the British West Indies and he was only able to enlist minor Spanish support for the Carolina offensive.

Colonel William Rhett

Unfortunately for the Franco-Spanish task force, a British privateer had spotted them on their way north and was able to give the British authorities in Charleston advance warning of the attack. Governor Nathaniel Johnson called out all the local militia, assembling about a thousand men under Lt. Colonel William Rhett. They fortified the outer islands and even built a small defensive fleet including one fire ship. All in all, Charleston was about as well defended as possible and would have the advantages of fighting on the defensive as well as having their enemies outnumbered. The first Franco-Spanish invasion force landed on September 9 near the Charleston “neck” and on James Island but were quickly driven off by the American militia, the survivors returning to their ships and retreating. Another ship, which had been delayed, landed her forces on September 12 under General Arbousset but they were quickly beset by the British/American forces and learned too late that they had no support. Their ship was captured and the troops ashore, including the French general, were forced to surrender. Had the attack been successful, and if the element of surprise had not been lost it might well have been, the history of the American south might have unfolded quite differently.

The following year, the British in South Carolina, building on the advances made by former Governor Moore, struck back in retaliation by instigating Indian attacks on the Spanish in Pensacola. However, 1707 was to be a year of frustration for both sides. In May, Governor Joseph Dudley of Massachusetts dispatched 1,600 men under John March to besiege Port Royal, the capitol of French Acadia (modern Nova Scotia) but despite having the French vastly outnumbered, the attempted siege failed. In the aftermath, the French planned to retaliate with a massive raid on New Hampshire, however, such an attack depended on local Indian tribes cooperating and few were willing to support it. Instead, the French resumed the raids on northern Massachusetts, eventually leaving the region totally devastated before the war was finally over. The French also struck back on Newfoundland in 1708 when French and Indian forces captured St John’s, however, they lacked the strength to hold such a prize and so simply destroyed everything they could and returned home.

Francis Nicholson

The British and colonial American authorities were bedeviled by the French and Indian raids but at a loss as to a way to stop them. Two notables, Francis Nicholson and Sam Vetch finally enlisted the support of Queen Anne for an offensive into Canada in 1709. One invasion force was to move on Montreal via Lake Champlain while another was to hit Quebec from the sea. However, a lack of naval support (due to the ships being diverted to Portugal) meant that the operation had to be abandoned. Undeterred, Nicholson went to London along with some American officials and Indian chiefs to enlist support for another such attack. The Indians proved a sensation in London society and Nicholson was granted an audience with Queen Anne who was impressed enough by his proposal to agree to support another offensive against the French in Canada. The only other major actions of the year were Indian attacks in the south, instigated by the British, against the French at Mobile, Alabama, though they proved not much more than an irritation.

In 1710 Nicholson was finally able to have his attack, this time a more serious effort to take Port Royal, Acadia which he did in September. With 3,600 British and American colonial troops, a considerable army for the time and place, Nicholson was able to capture Port Royal in one week. French Acadia was thus to become Nova Scotia (New Scotland). Buoyed by this success, Nicholson again went to London where he again urged Queen Anne to authorize an attack on Quebec. One again, the Queen is convinced and approves his plan but, once again, the operation had to be called off after the ships critical to the operation were dashed in the dangerous approaches. Minor raids and attacks would continue as the war in Europe carried on until 1714 but the major actions in America came to an end. The last significant engagement being the Battle of Bloody Creek in 1711 when a small group of New England militia were ambushed and wiped out (killed or captured) by a mixed force of Indians allied with the French in Acadia. It was part of the on-going effort by the French to weaken the British hold on the region but France simply lacked the resources in America to make much of an impact.

Pieter Schuyler

One more area, however, must be looked at as it had the potential to be extremely significant. For those paying close attention, you may be wondering about other areas of the British colonies that have not been mentioned alongside New England, the Maritimes and the southern colonies. Well, the middle colonies were far from the action but New York was not. The French/Canadians didn’t want to attack New York for fear that the powerful Iroquois Confederacy, with whom they had recently made peace, would side with the British and oppose them. New York businessmen, likewise, were making a great deal of money on the fur trade with the French and wanted no war with them. Peter Schuyler, the Commissioner of Indians for the British Crown in Albany, New York tried to persuade the Iroquois to join with the British/Americans for an attack on Canada but was rebuffed, the Iroquois deciding to stick to neutrality and sit out the conflict. So, New York was fairly quiet during the course of the war but it was due entirely to the decisions of the Iroquois and it was they who had the potential to change the course of history.

Mohawk chiefs met by Queen Anne

The Iroquois were, if not the biggest, probably the most well-organized and established coalition of Indian tribes in the region, perhaps in the whole of eastern North America at the time. They had been through some hard times recently and feared that if they engaged themselves on one side or the other of the conflict, other competing Indian tribes would take up with their enemies and encroach on Iroquois land. If the Iroquois had decided otherwise, if they had decided to take up arms with the French against the British it would have changed the entire nature of the conflict and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could have wiped out the British colonies at least in New York and New England, leaving the remainder in a poor position to withstand attacks by the French and Spanish. Further, if they had done so, the British might ultimately have been evicted from North America entirely, leaving only the Spanish and French to deal with who had a much more tenuous hold on their North American possessions due to the far fewer settlers they attracted to the region.

Many historians therefore agree that if the Indians, particularly those in or around the Iroquois Confederacy, had managed to come together and took decisive action against the British North American colonies, they might have changed the course of history and established themselves as the dominant force on the continent. Queen Anne’s War is thus regarded by many as the last chance the Native Americans had to stem the tide of European colonization and the countries we know today as the United States and Canada might not ever have come into existence at all. It is a worthwhile lesson in the basic facts that actions have consequences and that the world we know exists because of the decisions made by people in the past, decisions which determined what they would do and what they would not do. Sometimes taking no action at all can have major repercussions in the unfolding of history.

The Peace of 1714, Treaty of Utrecht

Queen Anne’s War thus ended with far more having been decided than most of those who dismiss it as nothing more than a series of ultimately inconsequential Indian raids seem to realize. It secured the southern border with Spain for the British colonies, preserved the British foothold on Newfoundland and British control over Acadia which would prove very important later on. It saw the passing of the last realistic chance the Native Americans had to assert themselves as the dominant force on the continent, severely set back the Spanish presence in Florida, kept South Carolina in British hands and determined the geopolitical battlefield in North America for the next war that was soon to come. During Queen Anne’s War the fate of the European presence in North America, to some degree, hung in the balance, depending on what decisions were taken by the local Indians. In the next conflict, the French and Indian War, would be decided whether the future of North America would belong to people who spoke English or who spoke French.

Monarch Profile: King Sky Witness of the Snake Kingdom

Among the Mayan city-state kingdoms, one of the most powerful was the “Snake Kingdom” or Kaan ruled from Calakmul. The ancient city sits in what is now the Mexican state of Campeche. During the early classic period of the Maya, Calakmul rose to become a major player, effectively a regional super-power and one of the monarchs who presided over that era of success was King Sky Witness, about whom next to nothing was known until fairly recently. Modern scholars have determined that he must have come to power at some point before 561 AD as it was in that year that Sky Witnesses set up a ruler, effectively a viceroy, at Los Alacranes or, as it was known then, the region of B’uuk’. This was probably the first of the conquests of the Mayan armies of King Sky Witness but certainly not the last or the greatest. The next to fall was Caracol, south of Naranjo in what is now Guatemala, the seat of the Saal kingdom. This brought Calakmul into direct conflict with their most powerful neighbor to the south; the city-state kingdom of Tikal (also known as Mutal).

Caracol had been effectively a vassal state of the Tikal kingdom and when King Sky Witness brought it into the sphere of influence of Calakmul it demonstrated the start of a long and bitter rivalry between Calakmul and Tikal; a clash of two regional superpowers for control over weaker Mayan populations surrounding them. In the past, Tikal may have been the stronger, dominating most of the southern Yucatan Peninsula, but the “Snake Kingdom” of Calakmul was on the ascendant, had been before the accession of King Sky Witness and would remain so for some time. The conquests of King Sky Witness brought about open warfare between the “cold war” rivals and with Tikal power on the decline, it did not take long for King Sky Witness to assert his supremacy when, in 562, his Kaan warriors won a decisive victory over the forces of Tikal. Information on this is extremely scarce and is gleamed mostly from unearthed hieroglyphics found at Caracol. However, it seems that the victory was total and that King Sky Witness had Wak Chan K’awiil (King Double Bird), the King of Tikal, taken prisoner and then sacrificed to the gods of Calakmul. It also seems likely that the rest of the royal family was massacred as the next Tikal ruler for whom evidence can be found, King Animal Skull, came from a completely different lineage than the previous monarchs.

So total was the victory of King Sky Witness that there no evidence has been found of any monument records for Tikal for the next 130 years. Evidently, this earned King Sky Witness quite a legendary reputation as his name is recorded far to the north in Okop (in what is now the Mexican state of Quintana Roo) as the “enemy” in an attack on western Palenque in 599 (Palenque being the future seat of power of the famous King Pacal the Great). Why is that so astonishing? Mostly because King Sky Witness was almost certainly long dead by that time, yet his legend was evidently great enough that crushing victories were still being attributed to him. The last reference to King Sky Witness has been found, again, at Caracol and is dated to 572 which some scholars believe may have been the year of his death as there is evidence that by the following year the “Snake Kingdom” had a new ruler in the person of King First Axewielder.

Monarch Profile: Emperor Cuauhtémoc

Among the old Aztec rulers, none are more revered in modern Mexico than Emperor Cuauhtémoc (“Descending Eagle”). Whereas the reputation of his predecessor, Emperor Montezuma II, remains mixed, Cuauhtémoc is remembered as a fierce warrior, a patriotic figure and a sympathetic victim of Spanish aggression. Of course, many details of his life are unknown and much of what can be presented was passed down as oral tradition. It is difficult to impossible to determine the veracity of such accounts but, on the other hand, they are not always wrong. Cuauhtémoc was, according to estimates, born sometime around the year 1495 into the (extremely large) Aztec imperial family. The ill-fated Emperor Montezuma II was a relation of his (usually given as cousin though sometimes referred to as uncle) and as a young man Cuauhtémoc married one of Emperor Montezuma’s daughters. According to traditional stories, Cuauhtémoc was an exceptional warrior who earned great fame for his leadership in the wars to subjugate and maintain control over the other native tribes of the central valley of Mexico. That is an easy enough story to accept, given what is known of the man.

What is more likely to be some embellishment after the fact is the stories about the omens that appeared, prior to the arrival of the Spanish, which Cuauhtémoc took to be ominous and that, from their first appearance, he was not in awe of these aliens but wary of them as potential enemies. According to such stories, Cuauhtémoc was always on the right side, foreseeing every disaster, never being fooled but never being listened to by those in authority so that the Spanish were ultimately able to overcome them. Again, even to the sympathetic ear, the stories of this period in the life of Cuauhtémoc seem a little too convenient and have the appearance of being made after the fact to embellish the reputation of someone who had already achieved the status of hero. In any event, as we do know from history, the Spanish forces of Herná n Corté s entered the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan on November 8, 1519, eventually taking Montezuma II prisoner. The Emperor died, whether at the hands of the Spanish or a mob of his own people remains hotly debated to this day. Cortes fought his way out of the city in a brutal battle known in Mexico as la noche triste (“night of sorrow”) and during his absence one of his lieutenants carried out a massacre, inciting the Aztecs to rise up in revolt.

This was about the time that Cuauhtémoc inherited the feathered crown at the age of twenty-five. Montezuma II was, upon his death, succeeded by his younger brother, Emperor Cuitlahuac, who died soon afterward of smallpox; a most devastatingly effective weapon of biological warfare the Spanish inadvertently brought with them. Because of the terrible toll the disease had taken, combined with the massacre and the “night of sorrow”, there was no one left but Cuauhtémoc to take the throne. His reputation as a great warrior may have also had something to do with it as the people looked for military leadership in this time of trial. With no time for pomp or ceremony, Cuauhtémoc immediately devoted himself to securing and defending Tenochtitlan as Cortes had returned with a larger Spanish and allied army to besiege the great city. The fight, however, did not go well for the Aztecs who had virtually no experience at the art of siege warfare whereas the Spanish (like most all Europeans of their era) were masters. Despite their best efforts, the Spanish forces steadily gained ground but Cuauhtémoc fought them every step of the way, from street to street and house to house for eighty days without respite.

Still, if things continued, a Spanish victory was inevitable so, on August 13, 1521, Cuauhtémoc sent out messengers to the surrounding tribes summoning them to help fight the Spanish and defend (or soon retake) Tenochtitlan. Unfortunately, the Aztecs were not known for being the most kind of masters or benevolent of overlords and few of their fellow natives were distressed to see them facing total defeat. Indeed, the Spanish victories thus far would not have been possible if so many of the indigenous people they encountered had not been so eager to throw off the Aztec yoke that they would willingly join anyone who offered them a change. In the end, only the people of Tlatelolco (the sister-city of Tenochtitlan, also built on an island on lake Texcoco) remained loyal to the Aztec Emperor. It was not enough and soon Cuauhtémoc had no choice but to abandon the great city, with his family and a small entourage, in disguise.

Unfortunately for Cuauhtémoc, he was captured while crossing Lake Texcoco with the remaining Aztec chieftains and surrendered to Cortes, reportedly handing the Spanish conqueror his knife and asking to be killed with it. Cortes declined, saying that, “A Spaniard knows how to respect valor, even in an enemy”. It may seem implausible to modern ears, especially given what transpired in the conquest of Mexico, but the Spanish had been genuinely in awe of the Aztec rulers and, just as the Christian crusaders had spoken to the Muslim conqueror Saladin, tried to persuade them that their beliefs were unworthy of such great men. Nonetheless, Cuauhtémoc was handed over to the royal treasurer to find out where the Aztecs had hidden their vast hordes of gold and to use any means necessary to gain this information. Cuauhtémoc, along with his most elite companions, declared repeatedly that no such treasure existed and, this answer being considered unsatisfactory, had their feet burned to “persuade” them to give up their secret. A famous story says that, during this ordeal, one of the chiefs urged Cuauhtémoc to tell the Spanish what they wanted to know to save them all to which the fallen emperor is alleged to have replied, “Do you think I’m in a bed of roses?”

In truth, there was nothing Cuauhtémoc could have done as it seems factual that no such treasure existed. Indeed, the Aztecs themselves did not view gold as being particularly valuable, other than, perhaps, as a decoration and certain bird feathers worked much better, being more colorful and considerably lighter and easier to wear. Cortes, when confronted with the horrific scene of his fallen foe having his feet burned, was ashamed and ordered his immediate release. Some gold was found, scattered about the city in various temples or the homes of leading aristocrats, but nothing like the vast quantities that were expected. Cortes had given Cuauhtémoc his life, but still did not trust him and when he set off to conquer Central America for the Spanish Crown, he took the fallen monarch with him for fear that he might lead another revolt if left in Tenochtitlan. It was during this expedition on February 28, 1525 that Cortes had Cuauhtémoc put to death after discovering that he and several other Aztec noblemen were plotting his assassination. However, Cuauhtémoc protested to the last that he had been unjustly accused and afterward Cortes was genuinely anxious about whether or not he had killed an innocent man.

After the death of Cuauhtémoc, one of his advisors, Tlacotzin, was made his successor as Emperor of the Aztecs and was later baptized into the Catholic Church and named Juan Velazquez Tlacotzin. What became of the late Cuauhtémoc is uncertain. An ossuary exists in Guerrero that is alleged to be his final resting place but the legitimacy of the site remains questionable. What is not questionable is the near legendary status that Cuauhtémoc has achieved in the years following Mexican independence from Spain. Cities, streets, plazas and every sort of landmark bear his name from one end of Mexico to the other and numerous statutes, busts and artistic images of him exist. His status rose most especially in the post-revolutionary period of Mexico when there was a concerted effort by the Mexican people to distance themselves from their Spanish ancestry and associate themselves almost exclusively with the native elements of their roots. Emperor Cuauhtémoc provided just what they were looking for in a national hero; one who fought the Spanish invaders, endured torture at their hands and died the victim of injustice.

The Fall of Tenochtitlan

It was on this day in 1521 that the Spanish forces of Hernan Cortes occupied Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire in one of the great, historical turning points in the history of the Americas. This marked the beginning of the end of the city-state of Tenochtitlan and the Aztec domination of central Mexico. Given the fact that history is set in stone and cannot be changed, it can be somewhat amusing to see how the perception of this pivotal historical event has changed so dramatically over the centuries. Once upon a time it was viewed as a glorious triumph, the triumph of Hispanic civilization over native barbarism and the (eventual) conversion to Christianity of a backward, heathen people. Today the more common perception is one of cruel and greedy Europeans slaughtering and exploiting helpless native innocents, destroying their glorious culture and replacing it with one of rigid rules and hierarchy. As is usual with such dramatic swings in perception and opinion, both of these extremes are right to an extent and both are wrong to an extent. Relatively few today may disagree with the common view, but at least some disagreement remains and it can be a controversial subject. In the same way, the image of the two great men involved, the conquistador Hernan Cortes on the one side and Emperor Montezuma II on the other, also remain hotly debated.

The conquest of Tenochtitlan was, on a basic level, a glorious event in that it was a great victory for a very small Spanish force against a far mightier foe. It was a triumph for Hispanic civilization in that what had been the Aztec Empire became, eventually, the Viceroyalty of New Spain with Tenochtitlan, renamed Mexico City, as the capital. Likewise, it was a triumph for the Roman Catholic Church over the native Aztec religion with, ultimately, the Catholic Church gaining about as many new members as had been lost to the Protestant movement. What is untrue is that the Aztecs were a backward or ignorant people. At the time, Tenochtitlan was larger than any city in Europe, the inhabitants were sustained by a truly brilliant system of agriculture and we know from archaeological discoveries that the Aztecs had trade ties with other Native American civilizations as far away as the middle of North America and South America. It is true that the Aztecs lagged behind western countries in many areas but in many cases this was due not to any lack of creativity or understanding but in a lack of understanding how to utilize things. They built magnificent temples and palaces and huge pyramids but never utilized the wheel even though we know they understood the concept from things like toys for children which had wheels in place of legs. They kept records and were highly artistic, traded with other nations and had a bustling economy and yet they never produced a written language, they simply used more complicated methods (like hieroglyphics) to reach the same end.

The Aztecs then were neither backward primitives nor were they helpless. In fact, they were a warrior people who often depended on other conquered peoples for innovation while themselves further mastering the art of war. Compared to the Spanish their weapons were primitive yet they were extremely effective for all of that. Despite lacking steel blades, they had clubs studded with sharpened rocks that could disembowel a horse with a single blow. Their weapons were extremely deadly and extremely effective and, in fact, not terribly different as to their basic level of technology from what the Spanish used in vanquishing them. Firearms were very few in the Spanish army that landed with Cortes and they did most of their fighting with swords, lances and crossbows rather than the canon or the harquebus which would have been of significantly less value anyway given humid, jungle conditions they were operating in and the fact that they were so slow to fire the enemy would have been upon them before they could fire more than one or two shots. In any event, even if the Spanish had been armed with “futuristic” flintlock muskets the Aztecs should have been able to overwhelm them easily by sheer weight of numbers.

There were two basic reasons for the defeat of the Aztecs, one of which involves their culture and religion but the secondary one was not their weaponry but their tactics and strategy which were not as sophisticated as those of the Spanish. There was also the often-overlooked fact that the Spanish had large numbers of native allies who, despite being just as bewildered as anyone at the sudden appearance of these strange foreigners, quickly and enthusiastically allied with them to throw off the yoke of Aztec rule. This is where we are drawn into the overall Aztec religion and culture. Although most today would prefer not to emphasize this point, the religion of the Aztecs was based around regular human sacrifices. Because of this, when engaged in warfare against their neighbors, the Aztecs did not focus on killing their enemies as much as they did on capturing as many as possible as these captives were then offered as human sacrifices. Their military tactics were based on this and thus they were at a considerable disadvantage when confronted by the Spanish whose tactics were based around destroying the enemy rather than capturing them. The Aztec practice of enslaving subject peoples and offering captives as human sacrifices also meant that they were not the most popular people in the neighborhood and their subject peoples were eager to join with anyone, no matter how strange they might be, in overthrowing them.

There was, of course, much that was great and glorious about the Aztecs and their culture. The dispassionate observer could also point out that the Spanish could commit acts of cruelty on their own as any people are bound to but even the most irreligious and dispassionate observer would have to admit, I think, that the Aztec religion was horrific. Naturally, the Aztecs did not think this was so, this was simply their religion, however, those who wish to downplay this aspect of Aztec culture (usually in an effort to vilify the Spanish) do a disservice, not only to the truth, but to the Aztecs themselves by belittling what was, to them, the heart of the spiritual beliefs. It should be remembered that it was the Aztecs themselves who left behind the accounts which emphasized this and according to the Aztecs themselves, on certain special occasions, they might sacrifice tens of thousands of people every day on their numerous pyramids. Two wrongs, of course, do not make a right but this fact should not be forgotten or the horror of it shrugged off in an effort to portray the Aztecs as the innocent victims of Spanish cruelty. Again, they had many admirable qualities and accomplishments, but they were far from being as pure as the wind driven snow. The Spanish were horrified by this and even tried to convince Emperor Montezuma II of the barbarity of it, saying that such practices were unworthy of so great a man as he.

Of course, by the time Tenochtitlan fell, Montezuma II had long departed this world. That is another common misconception; that Montezuma II was the last Aztec Emperor. He was not, in fact he was not even the next to the last or the next to the next of the last. But that brings us to one of the last and most ridiculous claims about this historical episode which is the “hierarchical” Spanish imposing their own system on an otherwise simple and egalitarian native society. This is clearly ridiculous but it plays upon some popular stereotypes. The Spanish were Catholics after all and the Catholic Church is “very hierarchical” (a bizarre phrase if ever there was one) and many people do have the perception of all Native American peoples being nature-worshipping egalitarians. Honestly, some Native American groups were fairly egalitarian but these tended to be the least advanced and a civilization as large and powerful as the Aztecs could certainly never have been built without someone being in charge and making use of a strict chain of command.

In fact, if anything, the Aztecs might have been “more hierarchical” than the Spanish. The Aztec Emperor was treated with extreme reverence, as a semi-divine figure, the earthly representative of the gods and had the most exalted position. He had the best of everything, including women (Montezuma II reportedly had around 1,000 wives and concubines all to himself) and slaves carried him on a litter everywhere he went or spread fine mats in his path as he walked as his person was considered too sacred for his feet to even touch the ground. This was obviously a far different position from the politics of the monarchies of western Europe in the High Middle Ages in which dealings between monarchs, nobles and common people had more of a contractual style about them. And, aside from the Aztec Emperor there was also an aristocracy and a priestly class who held special privileges. There is nothing, of course, wrong with any of that, but it is, again, another aspect of the Aztec civilization that many today seem to prefer to leave out.

So, we should try to keep a more honest and realistic view of such a significant historical event. Certainly neither side was perfect, there was a great deal of destruction, plundering and viciousness that accompanied the fall of Tenochtitlan, however the changes also brought an end to the barbaric practice of human sacrifice and at least some relief for those subject peoples who had been enslaved by the Aztecs. The fall of Tenochtitlan was a turning point in the history of the Americas but it was also by no means “the end” of the Aztecs. In fact, for several decades there continued to be an Aztec Emperor, the last one passing away in 1565. However, it was the end of a chapter and the beginning of a new one in the history of Mexico.

Monarch Profile: Chief Guyasuta of the Seneca

Chief Guyasuta of the Seneca was one of the most significant American Indian leaders throughout the period of the French and Indian War, the subsequent rebellion of Pontiac and the Revolutionary War. He was born sometime around 1725 in New York but moved with his family to the Ohio area when he was still quite young. During his youth the Iroquois Confederacy was officially neutral in the colonial rivalry of Britain and France but the Senecas in the native land of Guyasuta tended to be more positive toward the French. Their effort to fortify the area to stop British encroachments sparked the French and Indian War and, many years later, an elderly George Washington recalled Guyasuta being employed as a scout on his mission to the area. Later, Guyasuta was part of the French and Indian attack on the doomed expedition of General Edward Braddock who was marching on Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) only to be ambushed and decimated by a small Franco-Indian force. He later went to Montreal to negotiate the official alliance between the Senecas and the French with Governor Vaudreuil.

The French and their Indian allies dominated the early part of the war, against all odds, but ultimately were overpowered and defeated by the British. In the immediate aftermath of the conflict the heavy-handed approach of the British under General Amherst toward the Indians prompted the outbreak of Pontiac’s Rebellion. Guyasuta was heavily involved and though he had not planned the actual uprising he was well known as one of the most hawkish leaders in urging his people to come together to fight the British from Detroit to the Mohawk Valley. When fighting broke out Guyasuta served with the Delaware besieging Fort Pitt (formerly the French Fort Duquesne) and a number of other engagements in the conflict. Once again though, Guyasuta was on the losing side and when it was clear that victory was no longer possible he was one of the first to accept the fact, make his peace with the British and then accept their offer to act as a mediator to try to convince his countrymen to do the same. Thanks to his intervention more than 200 British captives were released (though some would have rather remained with their “captors”). This became something Guyasuta was known for and he was employed on similar missions afterwards. He helped negotiate and end to hostilities, the release of other prisoners and acted as an intermediate for the British for quite some time.

British Crown officials came to value him greatly and the western Indians relied on him to make their case when they had grievances against the British government or British settlers. Usually these complaints involved unfair business policies by local merchants or the ruinous effect of alcohol on the native tribes. He also served as a guide and a geographical expert because of his vast knowledge of the local terrain and the various tribes of the region. One of his last diplomatic missions was an effort by the British to relocate the fearsome Mingos which Guyasuta was ultimately unable to do. This lack of success was unusual for Chief Guyasuta but his diplomatic duties were interrupted by the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Once again he and his people were being called upon to choose sides in a conflict between the European settlers of North America.

The Continental Congress sent representatives to meet with Chief Guyasuta and other Native American leaders in 1775. They were anxious to win his sympathy and, if possible, induce him to join the war on their side. However, despite his past fights against the British, Guyasuta was too astute to buy what they were selling. He could see that the various political leaders were not united and thus their promises would likely be unreliable. He and the Six Nations tried to remain neutral and Chief Guyasuta tried to convince the Mingos to do the same, a fact which earned him a silver gorget and the rank of colonel in the Continental Army which regarded it as preferable to keep the Indians out of the war for fear they might join the British. However, it was to no avail as the continued American encroachment on Indian lands finally persuaded most of the Indians to join the war on the British side. In 1777 the decision was made by the Six Nations and Chief Guyasuta joined in the fight for his people and the Crown.

Guyasuta was among the many Indian warriors who accompanied Lt. Colonel Barry St Leger to Ft Stanwix. When a column of revolutionary militia moved in to relieve the fort the Indian warriors wiped them out at the battle of Oriskany. In retaliation, the Continental Army launched a massive raid up the Allegheny River destroying every Seneca village in their path. Guyasuta tried to defend the area but the hard-pressed British forces, already outnumbered could spare no one to help. Chief Guyasuta later served on another diplomatic mission to the Indians of the Midwest before leading a raiding campaign around modern-day Rochester, Pennsylvania. In 1781 he took up more peaceful duties again but, the following year, was back on the war path, despite his advanced age and poor health, burning Hannastown, Pennsylvania and attacking Wheeling, Virginia (now West Virginia). When the war ended in an American victory Guyasuta was forced to make his peace with the United States and there were efforts to make use of his diplomatic talents again in making peace between the U.S. and the native populations but he was unable to do much before his death in 1794.

Monarch Profile: Chief Pontiac of the Ottawa

Of the great American Indian chieftains of the colonial period, one of the names that is most familiar is that of the Ottawa war Chief Pontiac. For a time, he was the biggest problem the British Empire in North America faced and even offered the glimmer of a chance that His Most Christian Majesty the King of France might be able to overturn the results of the French & Indian War. Like most of his time, place and background, there are few hard facts about the exact origins of Chief Pontiac. The date of his birth has been estimated at 1712 to 1725. No one is sure exactly where he was born or precisely to whom. It was originally said that his father was an Ottawa and his mother an Ojibwa but others stated one of his parents, perhaps his mother, was of the Miami tribe while still others, more recently, assert that he was a Métis of French and native parentage. In any event, he himself and all those around at the time identified him as an Ottawa.

By 1747 Pontiac was a war chief and fought for the Kingdom of France against the uprising of Nicholas Orontony of the Huron. Later, he again fought on the side of His Most Christian Majesty in the French & Indian War against the British. Some accounts say he was present at the famous victory over the expedition of General Edward Braddock whose British column was decimated by a French & Indian attack. We will probably never know for sure but it is tempting to imagine a Pontiac perhaps taking a shot at a young militia officer named George Washington. It was also during this conflict that Chief Pontiac first crossed paths with Major Robert Rogers, a longtime enemy of his, but also a man who would in part be responsible for much of the fame of Chief Pontiac who wrote a play about him called “Ponteach: or the Savages of America”. It should be said though that, today, not all historians consider Rogers and Pontiac to have been so well acquainted as Rogers claimed.

In any event, the end of the French & Indian War was a pivotal moment for the native inhabitants of North America. New France was surrendered to the British and no one suffered more because of this than the Indians who had been allied with the French. The fears of British encroachment and colonization that led them to align with France in the first place were confirmed and even worse was to come. Trade all but stopped, tributary gifts were not exchanged, land was taken and people were killed as the British became the dominant power on the continent. It did not take long for Chief Pontiac and many others to wish longingly for the return of the forces of King Louis. The Indians had come to depend on muskets and gunpowder for hunting, long provided by the French in exchange for other goods. The British, however, refused to give the Indians weapons or ammunition in exchange for anything. Additionally, whereas few French colonists ventured onto Indian lands but instead tended to send out mostly fur trappers, traders and missionary priests, the British were serious about colonizing North America and soon large numbers of British settlers were encroaching on Indian lands.

Chief Pontiac had enough of this and began to rally his people and as many tribes of the Great Lakes region as he could into an alliance to rise up against the British. He and his fellows, war chiefs and shamans, called on the Indians to reject the alcohol the British traded to them (“poison” Pontiac called it) which stupefied them, to return to the traditional values of their people and to rally together in common cause to defeat the British. Chief Pontiac warned his enemies, saying in so many words that the French might have surrendered but he and his people certainly had not! He also hoped (unrealistically under the circumstances) that if he and his warriors could gain sufficient success the French would return and give them assistance. After a grand council Chief Pontiac and his men besieged Fort Detroit in May of 1763. His words inspired the men of many other surrounding tribes and soon the entire western frontier of British North America was ablaze as Indian warriors attacked forts throughout the Ohio country (as it was then called). French settlements were spared and this, combined with how sudden and widespread the attacks were, convinced the British that they were the victims of a vast Franco-Indian conspiracy masterminded by Chief Pontiac.

The truth, of course, was that Chief Pontiac had no authority over any people other than his own and could only persuade others to join him and those who did so acted, not as part of a secret conspiracy, but simply in their own best interests as any people are bound to. However, despite some successes, the Indians lacked the materials for a protracted campaign and effective siege warfare. Soon British retaliation brought ruin to the native population of the region. Chief Pontiac remained stalemated at Detroit, despite winning a stunning victory over a British column at the battle of Bloody Run. Groups began to abandon Pontiac and his cause and by October the proud chief was forced to admit to himself that the French were not coming to his aid (they hardly could have) and he abandoned the siege of Detroit and withdrew to the Illinois country try to continue rallying native support for an alliance against the British. It was not until 1766 that Chief Pontiac met with British Indian agent Sir William Johnson to end hostilities. In 1769 he was murdered at Cahokia, Illinois but his name and what he had tried to accomplish would live on for generations.

Ultimately, Chief Pontiac had failed in his aims and indeed the odds were always vastly stacked against him. However, his war ended up having some very far-reaching consequences. The British, showing their genius for learning from their mistakes, were never again quite so harsh toward the Indians as they had been. They recognized that such wars could endanger British rule in North America and for that reason they did everything in their power to prevent future conflicts and to try to encourage the Indians to see them as friendly allies as they had been previously with the French. Because of Chief Pontiac and the struggle he launched, His Britannic Majesty King George III ultimately declared all lands west of the Appalachians to be the domain of the American Indians and forbid any further encroachment of the region by British colonists. In a short time this act would become one of the primary causes for the American Revolution.

Monarchist Profile: Robert Rogers

Outside of those familiar with American military history the name of Robert Rogers might not be very well known. He was born on November 7, 1731 in a little town in the colony of Massachusetts. His father, an Irish immigrant, later moved them to New Hampshire and founded a town which is today called Dunbarton. In 1746-7 the young Robert Rogers saw service in King George’s War as a private in the New Hampshire colonial militia, getting his first taste of military service. After this was over and he grew older he was a rather troubled young man, known for his short temper, and had some run-ins with the law but nothing ever came of it.

However, conflict was again to rescue the rebellious Robert Rogers and provide him with respectable employment in 1755 with the outbreak of the French and Indian War. Despite being vastly outmatched the French fought with skill and tenacity and won a number of early victories. This, combined with the alarming growth of British colonists in North America, prompted many native Indians to cast their lot with the French and begin raiding British settlements. That winter, while at Fort William Henry in New York, Robert Rogers formed the military unit that was to make him famous; Roger’s Rangers. Rogers built this small band into an elite irregular warfare unit that would use Indian tactics against the Indians themselves and their French allies in numerous raids and reconnaissance missions.

Wearing practical green uniforms to blend more easily with the forest, Rogers taught his men the fundamentals partisan warfare; how to look after each other, move quickly, lightly and quietly, ever alert, to fight from cover and make every shot count, to see without being seen and sweep through an area without leaving a trace behind. He was hard on his troops but a father figure as well, taking it upon himself to recruit them, equip them and pay them, which put him severely into debt. His service proved so valuable that in 1758 General James Abercromby promoted him to major. The following year Major General Jeffrey Amherst, overall British commander, sent Rogers on an incredible raid deep behind enemy lines. Rogers, with 200 of his rangers, slipped through the French lines, evaded detection and destroyed the town of Saint-Francis in Quebec; a major psychological blow to the French and Indians. After the fall of Quebec and Montreal Rogers and his men were sent west where they seized Detroit, Michigan. The French throughout the Great Lakes area surrendered and the Rangers, their work done, were disbanded.

This adventure in the northwest was taken in reaction to the uprising of a pro-French Indian alliance against the British led by the Ottawa chief Pontiac, about whom Rogers would later write a dramatic play which paid no small part in the rise to historical fame of the brave Ottawa chief. The ensuing period of peace was ruinous for Rogers who ended up in prison for debt but the adventurous man escaped, left his American homeland for England and it was there that he tried his hand at being an author. However, he was soon called back and his return coincided with the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Some of his own men were among those militia who stood against the British in the opening skirmishes. Being a native of the colonies and not untouched by the complaints of the rebels Rogers first offered his services to General George Washington of the Continental Army. However, due to his recent stay in England, Washington took Rogers for a spy and refused him a commission. Deeply offended, Rogers washed his hands of the revolutionary movement and offered his sword to King George III and that time was gratefully accepted.

In 1776 the newly appointed Colonel Robert Rogers organized and led the elite Queen’s Rangers in New York. It was Rogers who was responsible for the capture of the famous American spy Nathan Hale. The Continental Congress declared him a traitor (always a rather hypocritical thing for revolutionaries to do) and also declared him divorced from his wife. She later married a proper rebel as Rogers was, by that time, mad, bad and dangerous to know. Rogers was retired for a time and suffering from terrible depression from all he had endured which led him to become an alcoholic. Yet, in 1779 he raised another elite fighting unit in Nova Scotia for Sir Henry Clinton; the King’s Rangers. However, his alcoholism had grown so bad that he was incapacitated and had to pass command to his brother. Captured by the Continental Navy, despite his many misfortunes he proved as difficult a prey as ever to hold and he escaped in 1782. Following the British surrender he accompanied the Crown forces back to England where he died in debt and obscurity.

However, Rogers did not remain obscure after his death in 1795. The Queen’s York Rangers of the modern Canadian army descends from the unit Rogers formed and led. There is also an artillery battalion of the Michigan National Guard that included some of Rogers’ actual descendants. Finally, during World War II, American troops greatly impressed by the skill and style of British commandos formed their own elite special forces and called themselves the U.S. Army Rangers after taking Rogers as their ancestor and inspiration. Thus, Robert Rogers, a soldier of the Crown and active loyalist became the forefather of all the modern American special forces. His famous ‘28 Rules of Ranging’ he drew up for his original unit are still read and well learned (with a few modifications) by U.S. Army Rangers to this day.

Emperor Maximilian's Yaquis

In the deserts of the Mexican state of Sonora reside the Yaqui Indians. A very unique group among Native Americans they are known for being very tall, being very fierce warriors and for their love of flowers. This is related to their deeply held devotion to their colorful religion; a combination of their own native beliefs and Catholicism. They were never conquered by the Spanish but were converted by Jesuit missionaries, bringing them into the Spanish imperial fold. They had a close relationship with the Jesuits and when the colonial government ordered them out of Sonora the Yaquis rebelled. Nonetheless, despite their problems with Spain, their relationship with the republican government that replaced them was far worse.

The Yaqui Indians had often clashed with the Mexican government from the very start. Even the liberal governments that spoke so grandly about freedom, democracy and constitutional rule were often the worst of all in their treatment of the Yaquis. The liberal federalist General Jose Urrea, for example, sold Yaquis into slavery, confiscated their land and sold it to Texan speculators. When the Yaquis resisted General Urrea led a brutal punitive expedition into Yaqui territory in November of 1842. The following year he enforced new laws which forced the Yaquis to live where the government ordered them to, send their children to government schools, surrender all of their weapons and forbidding them to leave their designated residence without passports. Outsiders were also forbidden to enter Yaqui territory without government permission for fear such individuals might incite rebellion.

Despite these measures, over the next decade rebellions and repression continued in a seemingly endless cycle. Even after the State of Sonora accepted the “reform” constitution of Benito Juarez the Yaquis were still treated little better than a servant class with few rights and no means of self defense. Rebellions and punitive expeditions continued in the years right up to the French intervention with the Juarez government, despite their high-sounding ideals, presiding over just as much brutality against the Yaquis as the other dictatorial regimes before him. When the French intervention began in 1864, Mexico City was quickly captured and as the French advanced on the port of Mazatlan President Juarez fled north to Chihuahua, declared Sonora to be in a state of siege and ordered the Governor of Sonora, Pesqueira to prepare for a French attack.

In March the following year four warships of the Imperial French Navy appeared in the port of Guaymas and on board was former Sonora warlord Manuel Maria Gandara whose family had led elements of the Yaqui people against the republican government in the past. He had been exiled by the federal authorities but once back on Mexican soil went to the Yaqui people and called on them to embrace the French and the new monarchy of Emperor Maximilian that was being established. By and large, the Yaquis did so and it is important to remember why. The Yaquis had been mistreated by virtually every republican administration they had dealt with so anything, the French or Emperor Maximilian, must have seemed like a chance for something better at the very least. It is also a fact that, from the time of his arrival, because of these circumstances, Indians across Mexico had been among the most enthusiastic supporters of Emperor Maximilian. This is significant when one remembers that Benito Juarez was a full-blooded Zapotec Indian himself and yet most Indians still preferred to put their trust in Maximilian because of how they had been treated by the republican government, Juarez included.

Rising up again against the republican administration in Sonora, and on May 22, 1865 defeated the forces of Governor Pesqueira outside of Guaymas. On July 13 French Imperial forces launched a successful attack against Pesqueira in Ures with a coalition force of many Indian and other local groups including Opata, Mayo, Pima and Yaqui leaders. However, in September the republicans launched a devastating counter-attack in Sonora led by General Morales starting with a critical victory at Guadalupe. By the end of October republican forces had devastated much of the region, not only in terms of the warriors killed and the women and children herded into captivity but also by the theft and destruction of Yaqui livestock to rob them of their mobility and starve them into submission -a common republican tactic against the Yaquis. On November 22, 1865 some 1,500 Yaqui fighters were forced to surrender to General Morales at El Medano and accept republican rule again. Sadly, after their defeat and surrender the Yaquis would suffer the greatest atrocities of their history in the years that followed.

Monarchist Profile: Henry Hamilton

The American Revolutionary War, mostly thought of in terms of Boston, New York and that area, was actually a world war and even restricting ourselves to the North American continent saw battles as far flung as Quebec and Florida. The war also reached the western frontier, at that time the area of modern Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan. In this region the most commanding figure of the Crown forces was Henry Hamilton. During the course of the war he would become the chief antagonist of the colonial revolutionary forces and gain infamy in the colonies as “Hamilton the Hair Buyer”. Through his careful cultivation of friendship with the Native American Indians he tried to accomplish a lot with a little on a frontier far from civilization.

Henry Hamilton was born sometime around 1734, probably in Dublin, Ireland. His father was an Irish MP and young Henry was raised in County Cork before joining the British army as a captain in the 15th Foot during the French and Indian War. He served honorably at the assault on Ft Louisbourg and at the battle of Quebec. Hamilton won the friendship of Guy Carleton, Lieutenant-Governor of Canada and Carleton helped arrange a promotion for Hamilton to brigade major. Nonetheless, in 1775 Hamilton sold his army commission and decided to enter politics. That same year he was appointed Lieutenant Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs at Fort Detroit, Michigan. This area was had been placed under the administrative jurisdiction of Quebec which was itself one of the things the colonial agitators railed against. The American Revolutionary War had already broken out when Hamilton arrived at Ft Detroit to take command and thus, despite entering civilian life, was forced into assuming a military role.

With few British regulars on hand and a population of Indians and French Canadians who had traditionally been hostile to Great Britain, holding onto this Northwest Territory was a daunting challenge for Governor Hamilton. However, he proved himself equal to the task and immediately saw that an alliance with the American Indians was essential to his success. Britain had been initially reluctant to so treat with the Indians but it was a move that made sense. American colonists were already moving farther west and settling on Indian lands and the Indians had every reason to oppose them and support the British whose King had recognized their rights to the land and who had tried to stop further westward expansion on the part of the colonists. So, in 1777, when the war was really heating up, Governor Hamilton received instructions to encourage Indian raids on colonial settlements on the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia; colonies which had already made extensive claims on Indian land.

Hamilton had already established friendly relations with the Indians and did as he was told, which quickly earned him an infamous reputation amongst the revolutionary colonials. Their propaganda portrayed the Indians (as usual) as uncivilized, bloodthirsty savages carrying out the worst atrocities against soldiers and civilians, women and children and with Governor Hamilton as the wicked British mastermind of all the devastation. As Indian raids hit settlements across Kentucky the revolutionaries gave the Governor his notorious nickname, “Hamilton the Hair Buyer”. This was the result of a much circulated story that Hamilton paid Indian warriors for every colonist scalp they brought him. This was, of course, a complete fabrication. There is no evidence Hamilton ever did such a thing, nor would it have made sense for him to do so since all scalps tend to look alike such an offer would have been just as dangerous for loyalists as it would have been to the revolutionaries.

Quite to the contrary, Governor Hamilton tried to limit civilian casualties as much as possible by sending British officers and at times Canadian militiamen along with the Indian raiding parties to ensure there were no atrocities. Of course, this could not be done all the time and methods of making war were simply different for Native Americans and many hundreds of settlers in Kentucky and western Pennsylvania were scalped and killed (American troops on punitive raids against the Indians were also quite adept at showing no mercy as well). Refugees poured in from the west and the revolutionary officials determined to take action.

So it was that the now famous expedition of Colonel George Rogers Clark was dispatched in 1778 by the Virginia authorities. Moving into what was then called the “Illinois Country” Colonel Clark and his men captured the thinly defended British outposts at Fort Sackville and Vincennes with the ultimate aim of taking Detroit. Not the sort to sit and wait to be attacked, Lt. Governor Hamilton responded by assembling his handful of British soldiers and what Indian allies he could and marching south from Ft Detroit to meet Clark and retake the lost outposts. Hamilton left on October 7, 1778 and gathered more Native American allies along the way. On December 17 he reoccupied Vincennes and then captured Ft Sackville in February of 1779. His counter-offensive had been a complete success but the wind of fortune changed direction when Clark returned. With many of his Indian braves gone Hamilton was isolated with only a tiny garrison at the fort and after a spirited attack he was forced to surrender himself and his post to Clark on February 25, 1779.

The colonial press claimed a great victory but this was true only in the limited, tactical sphere. Clark had failed in his ultimate aim of taking Ft Detroit while Hamilton had succeeded in driving out most of the American presence in the region, forcing the revolutionaries onto the defensive and forcing them to divert forces to the frontier to deal with the Indian raids. Lt. Governor Hamilton was clapped in irons and sent to Williamsburg, Virginia where many, inflamed by revolutionary propaganda, wanted him hanged as a war criminal. In the end, however, Governor Thomas Jefferson paroled Hamilton on orders from General George Washington. After being properly exchanged he was sent back to London in 1781. The following year Hamilton returned to Canada as Lt. Governor and later served as Deputy Governor of Quebec. Later he was appointed Governor of Bermuda and then Governor of Dominica. He married a woman named Elizabeth Lee with whom he had one daughter before he died on September 29, 1796 on Antigua still most remembered for his role as the primary antagonist to the revolutionaries on the western frontier.

Monarchist Profile: Chief Tecumseh

Chief Tecumseh was one of the great American Indian leaders of the 19th Century and an unsung hero for the Crown forces during the War of 1812. His life dispels many of the myths often associated with the Indian nations of this period. He was a shrewd political operator, a realistic leader of great foresight who could see what many could not, he had his own ideals and goals and made diplomatic decisions based on how best to accomplish them and he was a skilled military leader. His exact date of birth is unknown but a common one given is March 9, 1768 when he was born probably near what is now Columbus, Ohio into the Shawnee nation, Kispoko tribe, in which his father was a deputy war chief. His parents have moved to the area after being driven out of Alabama by tribal warfare there. In that hotly contested region his father, like many others, was pulled into the French and Indian War and Lord Dunmore’s War just prior to the American War of Independence. It was during Lord Dunmore’s War that Tecumseh’s father was killed at the battle of Point Pleasant in 1774.

The death of his father trying to halt expansion of the English colonies in America naturally had a significant impact on Tecumseh and he determined then to devote himself to becoming a warrior and fighting against the foreign presence encroaching on Indian lands; at that time British but soon to be American. He set out on his own, recruiting his own band of Native American warriors and waged a guerilla war against the flow of settlers moving west. He was quite successful at this but not without cost as his own village was burned a number of times in retaliatory offensives by American militia. Because King George III banned settling west of the Appalachians to save it for the Native Americans and because the colonial “patriots” were already violating the ban and claiming vast tracts of land for themselves most Indians, the Shawnee included, allied with the British Crown during the American War for Independence. The family of young Tecumseh was thus caught up in the conflict and displaced during the frontier campaign of George Rogers Clark.

After the United States won its independence and control of all formerly British lands up to the French Louisiana Territory. This led to more conflicts between the Americans and the Indians with the British naturally doing what they could to support the Indians short of outright intervention and provoking hostilities with the United States. Tecumseh became an accomplished warrior during this period and, along with his brother, fought in the battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 when U.S. forces decisively defeated the Indians. However, as the Indians were pushed back and more American settlers poured in a religious revival spread across the Native tribes led by Tenskwatawa, a prophet and the younger brother of Tecumseh. He preached a message of reactionary defiance calling upon all Native Americans to oppose further encroachment by the United States, to reject all things foreign (like alcohol -a wise decision and firearms -probably not so wise) and restore their traditional customs, styles and way of life.

While his brother focused on the spiritual revival, Tecumseh began planning to forge a large tribal confederacy of as many Indian nations as possible to band together to stop American expansion once and for all. Through the preaching of his brother and the diplomatic efforts of Tecumseh such an alliance began to take shape with the role of chief naturally falling on Tecumseh. His forces were soon drawn into conflict with the US after William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory, bribed, intimidated and cajoled a group of Indian leaders into signing over 3 million acres of land to the United States. Tecumseh urged the other Native American leaders to reject the treaty and even confronted Harrison on the issue, threatening to ally with Great Britain against the US if he refused. Harrison, obviously, did refuse but the prestige of Tecumseh continued to grow, thanks to his masterful oratory and the actions of the American government which convinced many that they could not be trusted.

Tecumseh traveled extensively, advocating unity among the Indian nations and resistance to the US government. In the south, the Red Sticks answered and the result was the Creek War. While he was gone Governor Harrison moved against his brother ‘the Prophet’ who launched a surprise attack on the American camp at the famous battle of Tippecanoe. The result was a terrible defeat for the Indians and a victory Harrison would later capitalize on to catapult him into politics. Yet, there were good signs. In 1812 the United States brashly declared war on Great Britain and launched an invasion of Canada. Remembering the earlier alliance between many of his people and the British, Tecumseh hoped they could achieve together a victory over US expansionism. When British General Sir Isaac Brock besieged Fort Detroit Chief Tecumseh joined him, displaying considerable tactical skill. The Americans finally surrendered Detroit without firing a shot despite having the British, Canadians and Indians outnumbered.

In ensuing battles between the British and Americans Tecumseh was on hand, using his forces expertly as scouts, raiders and flank troops. The death of General Brock was a great setback though as the new top commander in Canada, General Henry Proctor, favored a conservative defensive strategy whereas Tecumseh (and many British and Canadian officers as well) urged an offensive strategy. Tecumseh was eager to fight a decisive action but when the next major battle came it was the last for the great Indian leader. On October 5, 1813 a British-Canadian-Indian force met an American army 3 times their size at the battle of the Thames near what is now Chatham-Kent, Ontario. In command of the American forces was Tecumseh’s old nemesis William Henry Harrison. The plan Proctor had for the battle never got off the ground and early on the bulk of the British troops were forced to retreat or surrender. Tecumseh and his men fought on, putting up a remarkably determined and heroic resistance when Tecumseh was killed. With the rest of the army gone and their chief killed the remaining Indian forces quickly folded.

As we know, the War of 1812 ended in stalemate. The Americans were defeated in their efforts to conquer Canada but they lost no territory of their own. General Proctor was court-martialed for his performance at the Thames and Harrison eventually became President of the United States. Tecumseh joined the ranks of the great heroes of the Native American people and one of the great villains of the early American republic. However, his legacy lingered in the form of a legend which said that Tecumseh (or more often his brother the ‘Prophet’) put a curse on the leaders of the United States which said that no president elected during a year ending in zero would survive the office. The legend gained some credence over the years as Harrison (elected in 1840) died of pneumonia in office, Abraham Lincoln (elected in 1860) was assassinated in office, James Garfield (elected in 1880) was assassinated in office, William McKinley (elected in 1900) was assassinated in office, Warren Harding (elected in 1920) died of a heart attack in office, Franklin D. Roosevelt (elected in 1940) died of a cerebral hemorrhage in office and John F. Kennedy (elected in 1960) was assassinated in office. However, the “curse” seems to have been broken as the next two president elected in a year ending in zero (Reagan and George W. Bush) both survived their terms though both had attempts made on their life.

Ironically enough, Tecumseh has, after a considerable passing of time, become almost as honored in the United States as he is in Canada where he is regarded as a hero in the war that saved Canadian independence from the US with numerous, towns, landmarks, ships etc named in his honor.