One of the recognized problems in research, any kind of research, is the repetition of a single original finding or opinion by other, later researchers as if those others had arrived at the finding or opinion independently. This, then, may result in an extensive bibliography of secondary sources for a position that, in fact, has only a single source. Obviously there is no problem with building on the work of others, but there is a problem if the original source was flawed.
In 1986 I gave a paper at the Anthropological Association
Meetings in Philadelphia
entitled “On the Insanity of Cornplanter.”
My work during the previous ten years had been concerned with various
aspects of the Seneca Indian/Quaker missionary relationship during the early reservation period
(1798-1824), but Chief Cornplanter had been a tangential figure for me largely
because he lived on his own land downriver from the reservation. Still I was aware that Cornplanter was accepted by various scholars to have had a
“psychotic episode” in some accounts and a “depression” in others in the year
1820, and that, of course, was based on missionary accounts. Because I had frequently called into question
the judgments and conclusions of the missionaries, I decided to look back at
the evidence presented on the mental state of a dynamic and pragmatic
individual who was in his mid-eighties in 1820.
He lived until 1836, active until the end and was described in 1830 by a
white reporter as “a smart, active man, seemingly possessed of all his strength
of mind and perfect health.”
So, how to explain the “psychosis?”
I believe his behavior can alternatively be read as that of a man in control of himself,
responding in a strategic and culturally appropriate way to a difficult
socio-political situation. Further, I would suggest that a judgment that he was
crazy, while enlivening history in a literary manner, is the least interesting
conclusion that can be drawn from the material and a closure of the possibility
of comprehending the historical situation while ignoring the biases of the
primary sources.
Cornplanter, a chief by virtue of achievement and not by
traditional ascription, was born sometime between 1732 and 1740 at Conewaugus
on the Genessee River
in New York . His father was a white man (John O’Bail or
Abeel) from an Albany
family with whom Cornplanter had only incidental and anecdotal contact. His Seneca affilitation through his mother
was apparently total, as was appropriate in this matrilineal society, and his
mixed-blood status is never noted as informing his own behavior or that of
others to him. Handsome
Lake , the Seneca visionary and
prophet, was his half-brother and, in 1799 when the Quaker missionaries first
arrived through Cornplanter’s invitation to the settlement on the Allegheny River , the two brothers and their families were
sharing a single residence on Cornplanter’s private land. That Cornplanter had private land granted by Pennsylvania on
which he and his heirs continued to reside is a testimony of Pennsylvania ’s gratitude to him. His reputation for cooperating with whites
was additionally built on his role in the signing of two treaties, both opposed
by the famous chief Red Jacket, the great Seneca orator. The first of those treaties, in 1784, fixed
the western boundary of Iroquois lands, and the second in 1794, relinquished Ohio lands. The dichotomized strategies of Cornplanter
and Red Jacket were further reflected in their response to Indian involvement
with agencies of white power.
Cornplanter frequently sought accommodation to enhance the position of
the Seneca and Red Jacket urged separation.
It seems likely that the tension between the two men was personal as
well as political and that Cornplanter was responding to this personal
competition with Red Jacket in some of his statements in 1820. Certainly the attitudes he expressed at that
time were more congruent with the consistent position that Red Jacket had
expressed. It should be remembered,
however, that they were leaders living at some considerable distance from one
another and influencing separated populations, hence not necessarily
competitive for the same followers except in a larger political sphere.
Reservation lines were established at the turn of the 19th
century and the Seneca populations settled onto various segments of land for
which the Holland Land Company held the preemption rights, i.e. the exclusive
rights to purchase Indian land. These
rights were sold in 1809 to the Ogden Land Company, and no profit from this
investment could be made unless the Seneca could be induced to vacate the
land. From 1809 the pressure to sell was
intense and Cornplanter is referred to as saying “some of the young warriors
had said they would kill any chief who should sell any more of their lands, and
for his part he thought it would be right.”
Every means which the politically influential investors could use to
bring pressure on the Indians to sell was used.
They manipulated federal and state political opinion to remove the
Indians to western lands in Wisconsin, Arkansas and Kansas; they bribed
individual Indians and advisors of Indians; and they offered a series of
alternative plans by which they would acquire the more valuable lands in the
northern part of the state, particularly Buffalo and Rochester, by removing all
the Senecas to the comparatively worthless land of the Allegany reservation
which was Cornplanter’s center of influence.
My own analysis leads me to believe that the Ogden Company was working
on “insider information” about the impending building of the Erie
Canal and their strategies were tied to that project. By 1819 the pressure toward the Allegany
relocation of the total Seneca population was intense.
The Quaker missionaries whom Cornplanter had invited to
Allegany as trusted intermediaries consistently supported the Senecas in the
goal of preserving their lands, but their judgment was that the best way to do
this was to divide the land into private allotments rather than to continue to
hold it collectively. The Quakers had
originally anticipated that a desire to hold land “in fee simple,” i.e. as
private property, would evolve naturally out of their proposed restructuring of
the Seneca community into that of male agriculturalists, but, when this program
bogged down, they attempted to approach their goal from another angle, that is,
directly from that of land divisions.
The on-site Quaker senior representative, Jacob Taylor, was
an assertive man and often Cornplanter’s adversary. In 1815 Cornplanter invited the Presbyterians
to found a mission on his land because, Taylor
writes, “he said friends had forsaken him and that one of us [Jacob Taylor] had
said he formerly was like a bright star and gave light to his people, but that
he is now a dark lamp or like a rattlesnake that poisons them. However just the simile, it gave great
offense for he alleges that such a sentiment coming from a Quaker causes the
Indians to think light of his judgment and they sometimes decline to follow his
counsel and that he wanted somebody that would not forsake him.” Similes like “bright stars and dark lamps”
would be expressed several years later by the Presbyterian, Timothy Alden, but
his causal analysis was psychological derangement evidenced by Cornplanter’s
rejection of Christianity, and it is
Alden who is the primary source on which the secondary sources rely. In 1818, Jacob Taylor arranged, presumably on
his own authority, to have the
reservation at Allegany surveyed in order to facilitate allotments, but the
surveyors were met by a delegation headed by Cornplanter who ordered them off. There were strong factional divisions at Allegany
over this issue and Cornplanter was regarded as a strong and rational leader of
one of these factions along with his younger relative Blacksnake. The
unresolved pressures over land divisions and removal continued to mount and
were not quieted for about another 25 years.
By 1818 the socio-political environment was strewn with
missionary presence and with conflicting opinions about appropriate strategies
for the salvation of the Indians both here and in the hereafter. All the missionaries of whatever persuasion
were firmly in agreement with prevailing United States governmental sentiment
that the Indians must be civilized and assimilated, but, by around this time,
it has been suggested that the Jeffersonian enlightenment view of the noble
savage being led on the path to civilization by instruction was being perceived
as a failure and alternatives of coercion and separation through removal were
gaining ground.
Whatever effects this change of sentiment was having on the
Seneca, in 1818 there was a revival of nativistic expression and interest in the teachings of Handsome Lake
and a large council was held at Tonawanda
to renew the teachings. Timothy Alden
related that, at this council, a man arose in the
ordinary course of things, who said that
he had a dream to tell in which the sun spoke to him and told him to instruct
the Indians to repent their wicked ways or disasters would follow. Alden
remarks that “he did not however assume the character of a prophet. He simply related his singular dream; yet he
appeared to feel as if it should be regarded like a communication from the
Great Spirit.” Alden, himself, had no
great trouble with verbalizations suggesting spiritual communications as
positive events, except when the communications gave instructions contrary to
his own opinions. When he visited
Cornplanter in 1817 he quotes Cornplanter as saying, “I have long been
convinced that we are wrong and that you are right. I have often told my people that we must be
wrong and that you must be right because you have the words of the Great Spirit
written in a book.” Alden goes on to say
that Cornplanter had said that, if it would do any good, he would personally
intervene with Red Jacket in favor of Christianity. At this Alden remarks with praise: “Must he
not have been blessed with some special communications from the Holy Spirit?”
This, then, is the socio-political climate in which
Cornplanter’s behavior around 1819-1820 must be analyzed for its rationality,
and the analysis must not rest on the opinions of invested white men, but on
the cultural congruence and appropriateness of Cornplanter’s own behavior. We cannot know the state of his mind; we can
only analyze the fragmentary bits of information we have about what he did and
said and decide whether these are sufficiently bizarre in the historical and
cultural context to be judged psychotically inappropriate.
And, of course, there is the continual problem that the
behavior is being selected for reportage by white men who may have been
predisposed to consider Indian behavior in general as bizarre or, at least,
perverse. Considering Cornplanter’s age,
it is perhaps astonishing that there was so much public behavior and encounters
with white men as were reported. He
continued until his death in 1836, certainly past 100 years old, to have
occasional public meetings and the white reporters were invariably impressed
with his dignity and demeanor. In
1821-22, when the state of Pennsylvania decided to tax his land, he successfully
resisted this taxation and delivered a speech at the courthouse in Warren which
were in essence another version of his “visions” [those that Alden viewed as
deranged and that will be discussed below] but which were here judged not only
legally persuading, but appropriate, effective and characteristic of Indian
discourse.
[NOTE. A professional anthropolgist & an active player in the emerging discourse around an ethnopoetics, Diane Rothenberg is the co-editor of Symposium of the Whole: A Range of Discourse Toward an Ethnopoetics (University of California Press, 1983) & the author of Friends Like These: An Ethnohistorical Analysis (University Microfilms International, 1976). Copies of
her book, Mothers of the Nation,
are still available through Ta’wil Books, joris@albany.edu. Two essays from the same collection,
"Corn Soup & Fry Bread" & “The Economic Memories of Harry
Watt," were posted earlier in Poems and
Poetics, blogger version (December 5, 2008, March 12. 2009, March 24, 2009,
& April 8, 2009). “On the Insanity
of Cornplanter,” a historical account that touches also on the poetics &
problematics of vision in traditional Indian cultures, has only recently been
reassembled.]
(To be continued,)
No comments:
Post a Comment