Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas

by Jeffrey Ostler

The first part of a sweeping two-volume history of the devastation brought to bear on Indian nations by U.S. expansion

In this book, the first part of a sweeping two-volume history, Jeffrey Ostler investigates how American democracy relied on Indian dispossession and the federally sanctioned use of force to remove or slaughter Indians in the way of U.S. expansion. He charts the losses that Indians suffered from relentless violence and upheaval and the attendant effects of disease, deprivation, and exposure. This volume centers on the eastern United States from the 1750s to the start of the Civil War.

An authoritative contribution to the history of the United States’ violent path toward building a continental empire, this ambitious and well-researched book deepens our understanding of the seizure of Indigenous lands, including the use of treaties to create the appearance of Native consent to dispossession. Ostler also documents the resilience of Native people, showing how they survived genocide by creating alliances, defending their towns, and rebuilding their communities.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Indigenous, Native American, American History, Native American History, Indigenous History

544 pages, Hardcover

First published June 11, 2019

About the author

Jeffrey Ostler is Beekman Professor of Northwest and Pacific History at the University of Oregon.

Reviews

[Dan McCarthy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jeffrey Ostler’s “Surviving Genocide” is likely the most in-depth history of the interactions between settler colonists in North America and the indigenous nations that were there already. This first volume focuses specifically on the period between the Seven Years War through Bleeding Kansas and uses primary sources from both sides and population data to get a clear picture of how and why native nations were removed from their homelands. Throughout the book, the author grapples with whether or not the forced removal of natives east of the Mississippi can be considered genocidal.

However by using demographic data the author argues that in fact Indigenous populations were stable or rising in the decades before removal despite the myth of the “vanishing indian” that was used by politicians to justify removal policies. “The basic template for future [removal] arguments: since Indians could not survive in the East, the only humane option was to move them. Both of these premises were deeply flawed. First, eastern Indians were not vanishing, they were not predestined to vanish in the future, and they could have survived (even prospered) indefinitely in their homelands with sufficient support and protection from the federal government. Second, removal was not a humane option. Setting aside commonsense concerns about moving large numbers of people great distances to new places, the contention that settlement had an inherently deleterious impact on Indians meant that removed Indians would eventually be subject to the same forces that threatened their extinction in the East.”

Ostler also counters the common argument of virgin soil epidemics causing most of the Indigenous deaths post contact are unfounded based on known population data. This argument is often used to justify the argument that the collapse of native populations isn’t a genocide, but a horrible natural disaster. Ostler rationally points out that while there were certainly virgin soil epidemics, they were exacerbated by societal stresses, such as wars, the burning of villages and food reserves, forced removal to poor lands, and even concentrating Natives.

While the book does go further back into the colonial era to provide a through line to the history, it mainly focuses on the Revolutionary War period, the War of 1812, and the Indian Removal period. In each of these sections, Ostler goes into depth discussing interactions between tribes and the settlers, treaties, and politics within both the native tribes and confederations and in the United States. I was particularly impressed with the Indian Removal section, where Ostler has chapters discussing the removal of tribes in the Old Northwest, and what happened to the tribes already living in the areas west of the Mississippi set aside for the removed eastern tribes. Both are often overlooked in other removal histories.

Overall I really can’t recommend this book more. It is a detailed and thoughtful history that lays it all out to bear using demographic data, and a plethora of primary sources. Throughout the book, Ostler grapples with the question "was all of this a genocide?", and comes to a nuanced view of the interactions that is well supported by the sources he includes.

“Because of the debate’s intractability, I often thought while working on this book of avoiding the question of genocide altogether and simply analyizing “forces of destruction” regardless of whether they should be considered genocidal. In the end, though, i could not escape the sense that genocide is an integral part of the history I have written about. Genocide was not present all the time, and so to answer the question of genocide for this part of American history with an absolute “yes” would be simplistic. But replying with an absolute “no” would overlook a great deal. Not only would it fail to take seriously Indians’ own views on the matter, it would miss many other overlooked dimensions of this history. It would fail to fully reckon with the fact that government officials consistently used in genocidal threats to secure consent, and it would continue to ignore the fact that the United States adopted a policy of exterminating Indians who resisted demands.”

[James Bechtel · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. Jeffrey Ostler's "Surviving Genocide" is a detailed and sophisticated survey of the expansion of the United States and the confrontation with Indigenous peoples from the American Revolution to the brink of the Civil War. The word "survey" usually means a lack of detail and/or sophistication, but that is not the case here. Themes include disease, war, dispossession, removal, and survival. And he addresses the contentious subject of genocide throughout the book. Two excellent appendices are provided. The first, "The Question of Genocide in U.S. History", is only five pages long, but is an excellent account of this issue from a historiographical perspective that is at the same time a personal one for Ostler as well. He is sophisticated in his explanations and uses of the term. Not to be missed. The second appendix is a detailed look at Indigenous population estimates. I will maintain Claudio Saunt's "Unworthy Republic" as a 5-star book - a notch ahead of Ostler.

[Ironically Nostalgic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re: the U.S.: tear it down; rotten to the core. This is a thorough, definitive indictment how the U.S. formed as a direct result of the displacement and dispossession of indigenous societies across the continent. The favorable conditions and ambiguous re-framing of national history has long created a permanent historic present for Americans--one where most Indians died of disease and the ones remaining were similarly brutal to colonial settlers. Prof. Ostler masterfully builds a counterfactual case through this first volume that--in lieu of any official declarations of outright intent--the unyielding brutality and scale of American expansion can scarcely be described as anything other than the genocidal machinations of empire.

This is not an easy read. This is a treatise on the centuries-long project that culminated in the extermination of innumerable cultures and histories. This is one of the most comprehensive examinations of indigenous displacement, genocide, and erasure that I have ever read.

[Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. I recommend this to everyone.

[Ryan Fischer]

It does feel a bit like Ostler can't quite decide whether to focus on the genocide argument or not, but he makes a compelling case anyway, and this is a first-rate survey of Native American history and removal policies regardless (and Ostler is very convincing that, whatever officials may have said, removal was always the policy).

[Erik Champenois · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent overview of the tragic history of the U.S.-Native American relationship from the French and Indian War to about 1860. This is the first in a two-volume series, and I very much look forward to the sequel.

"Surviving Genocide" doesn't get into much detail on the personalities or on specific episodes but rather overviews the history thoroughly from a general perspective, showing how Natives suffered from removal, disease, war, and acts of genocide. Ostler is careful about his use of the word "genocide" to describe American treatment of Native Americans, elaborating in an appendix on scholarly dialogue about definitions and uses of the term, and making it clear that not every act of war or dispossession was genocidal. Yet, as Ostler argues, it is impossible to write an overview of this history without concluding that "genocide" and "genocidal" remain relevant terms, both to an extent at the general level, and certainly to several of the historical episodes and the mindsets of many in the events involved. Importantly, Ostler stresses that genocide was perceived by many Native Americans as the ultimate end-goal of white America.

In the book's Conclusion, Ostler mentions a conversation between a white person (Adlum) and a Native (Logan), with the white person telling the Native that the whites have never attacked the Natives the way the Natives have the whites, attacking by surprise and not sparing anyone. The Native then mentions the Gnadenhutten massacre as an example where whites did exactly that. The white person realizes he had forgotten the massacre and states that it was a disgrace to his country. Ostler uses this episode to show how to white Americans the massacre became an event more forgotten than remembered, but to Natives the massacre would have remained ever present in memory. Ostler then follows with these important words:

"It has been well over two centuries since Logan rebuked Adlum for his ignorance about the history of the American destruction of Indian nations... Nonetheless, the forgetfulness of Adlum persists, not only within the general public but among academic and popular historians. No one can complain about a shortage of books on the Founding Fathers, but it is possible to read stacks of them without learning a thing about the Gnaudenhutten massacre, let alone being asked to consider it as an event revealing basic tendencies in early American history... many historians continue to see destructive acts and episodes as outliers rather than as manifestations of basic tendencies. There remains a disposition to soften recognition of consistent patterns of destructive action by insisting on the ultimate goodness of America, or at least the humanitarian intentions of many of its leaders and citizens."

An important book for anyone interested in learning the full history of the United States, "Surviving Genocide" shows an important part of the darker side of our history - the harmful effects of American settler-colonialism on Native populations, downplayed by many Americans then and since then. And while it is important to celebrate and learn from the better angels of our nature, our darker history is just as important to remember and learn from so that we can learn to do better today.

[Sara Kafka · Rating 5 out of 5]

a must read for indigenous history

Pivotal. Important. Forces the reader to take the concept of genocide in native history of North America seriously. But also the implication of racism and settler colonialism on health outcomes - things still linger today with social and structural health determinants. Flips the “virgin soil “ concept on its head.

[Oca · Rating 3 out of 5]

While a valuable compendium of sources describing certain native viewpoints and colonial-settler genocidal expressed views, it relies mostly on cherrypicking to fit its argument. By selecting cherrypicked quotes from frequently random individuals (often completely devoid of context), the author seeks to create a narrative about a genocidal consciousness present in colonial-settler society that was probably stronger than in historical reality.

Namely, the author ignores plenty of other counter-sources and evidence that argues against this reading. The approach of just letting sources “speak for themselves” allows the propagation of untrue, biased, or unproven narratives. Also there were clearly some entirely invented quotes used to justify the thesis, such as Sheridan’s in the plains campaign.

I fundamentally disagree with this methodology. Another approach would be to do the same thing in reverse: cherrypick from quotes showing how settlers viewed natives positively and in noble light, examples of native-settler cooperation, intermarriage, aid rendered by settlers and spending by the government to help natives to argue against any general genocidal thesis.

The repeated question of population decline is also manipulated and improperly stated throughout the book. The author uses inflated population estimates of the indigenous population before Columbus not substantiated by recent DNA testing in Caribbean populations. The evidence suggests that by 1800, native populations were already reduced to 0.5 million in continental US, thus most of the population decline had already occurred before the American Revolution. Thus native population density, already low to begin with, was extremely low in this period. Exogamy was an additional factor explaining why native recorded populations more than halved during the course of the 19th century.

The book makes an interesting case for disease and argues that it was primarily the worsening living conditions experienced by native populations due to colonial settlement and official policies that led to susceptibility to disease. But it overstates its case in attempting to deny 19th century virgin epidemics altogether. It completely ignores the devastating epidemics that occurred before large scale colonial settlement or conflict, which suggests that a succession of new diseases did create immunity problems and recovery was hindered not just by worsening conditions, but also due to wave after wave of new diseases.

In conclusion, the author does not devote enough attention to the dynamics of settler violence and conflicts with natives as it doesn't fit with the book's thesis. The cycle of (unequal) reprisal violence and atrocities between natives and settlers (and the periodic mutual hatred/fear that accompanies this) is covered to a great extent by other historians but is merely alluded to in this work in passing.

It is not uncommon in such circumstances, for pro-genocidal views/fears to be expressed by either side in such a conflict, but much rarer for such a policy to be systematically carried out in a coordinated manner. Charges of genocide by victims of removal, violence, suffering demographic decline are very common. But the original and legal definition of genocide: the intent to physically destroy a people must be the motive for indiscriminate atrocities. Land acquisition/ethnic cleansing, revenge, waging wars are competing motives for a general genocidal charge being used to describe this entire history.

[Zulfiqar · Rating 5 out of 5]

“As the United States expanded in pursue the illumination of native people it unleashed a variety of destructive forces on Indian communities war and violence disease material deprivation starvation and social stress. These forces were interrelated in complex Waze American warfare against Indians for example sometimes resulted in substantial loss of life from direct killing but it also had other destructive consequences. American soldiers rape of native women a phenomenon that is documented in historical record and likely occurred far more frequently than the documents revealed did not usually result in death. Warfare also frequently resulted in the burning of Indian towns and crops in this often lead to material deprivation and starvation conditions that favored disease. Similarly the process of moving eastern Indians west of the Mississippi those sometimes involving direct violence and massacre was lethal primarily because of the conditions of the removal lack of adequate food clothing and shelter unfavorable environmental conditions including weather and social stress associated with forceful deportation made people vulnerable to the variety of pathogens. After removal native nations attempting to make new homes in the west continue to suffer from social stress and poverty which intern increase their vulnerability to entrepreneur seeking markets for liquor.”
(Ostler, Jeffrey. Surviving genocide Native in the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas Yale University Press New Haven & London)

[Ian Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ostler's book is as comprehensive an analysis as you'll find of the subject of the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native American groups during the specified time period. The book addresses Native nations east of the Mississippi. Ostler plans to write another book about the constellation of Native peoples west of the Mississippi at a future date. There's a lot of talk lately about what does or does not constitute genocide. Ostler argues that although the attempt to eliminate Native presence east of the Mississippi may not always fit the description of genocide, much of what took place, removals, wars, etc., happened with genocidal intent. Also important is his analysis of the trope of "the vanishing Indian," arguing that although white Americans used this idea as justification for removal (either be removed or you will perish), many Native nations were actually seeing an increase in population. Much more to dive into in this book and can be a bit mind boggling trying to wrap your head around the various Native nations mentioned. A must read for anyone interested in the history of Native Americans - specifically attempts at their elimination and/or removal.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent and detailed account of how the process of removal and colonisation in the US affected the various Native American nations. Ostler argues among other things that the impact of virgin soil academics is exaggerated. He also demonstrates that comparing population sizes is not the only marker of a genocide, since some nations actually grew in population over the time of colonisation. Rather, genocide in Ostler's presentation is about the ways in which the American government deliberately undertook to move Native American tribes and dispossess them. This included massacres like Gnadenhutten and Bad Axe, but there were also the acts of removal of nations in the knowledge that such removal would cause the deaths of thousands, threats of genocidal violence should Native nations fail to reach an agreement and cede land or move away, and simple unconcern for what happened to Native Americans once they moved away, or indeed acknowledgement that the Native Americans had ownership of the lands in question.

[Marklutherlawoffice · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very researched book about the Native American Indians East of the Mississippi from colonial times through the 1850s. The second volume will be about the Indians West of the Mississippi.
Unfortunately the book is repetitious with the same narrative: Whites and Indians fight, the Indians chose the wrong side in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The whites moved into Indian land, the Indians were forced (or agreed) to move ever Westward. Eventually the US policies, disease, starvation, and battles wiped out dozens of tribes.
Interesting that so many cities (Omaha, Kankakee, etc) were named after Indian tribes

[Arjan Walia · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed revisionist history of early and nineteenth-century America. Ostler argues that the preconditions for genocide against Indigenous North Americans was laid as early as the pre-Revolutionary period, with indiscriminate and "exterminatory" violence against Native people who resisted the scheme of Euro-American settlers to steal their land. He supports his arguments with oftentimes gut-wrenching events in the history of Native nations east of the Mississippi River--especially efforts for removal (i.e. deportations) in both the South and North--as well as the oftentimes openly genocidal language of settlers and state and federal officials.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Detailed history of native people and their relationship with the settler governments of North America both before and after American independence. It's an eye-opener if you're not already familiar with the long series of treaties and promises that were broken by the settler governments, and the consequent suffering of the native people.

[Ron Nurmi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A look at how the U.S and its colonial predecessor treated the Native Americans, to sum up, the treatment was bad if not genocidal it was the next best thing to it.
This is part one of a two-part history as it covers from about 1750 to the outbreak of the Civil War.

[Shrike58 · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you pick this work up prepare yourself for a tough time, as this synthesis seeks to analyze whether Indian Removal east of the Mississippi can be best categorized as an act of government sanctioned genocide, or was "merely" an exercise in ethnic cleansing. For Ostler, the difference relates to intentionality and restraint, and the continuation of removal by U.S. federal authorities, as the casualties mounted, displays such a level of indifference as to constitute commission. Perhaps my one issue with this work is that there is some difference in my mind between the final solution of the Jacksonian Period, for which there is no defense, and acts committed prior to 1814, which was a "fair" fight in that both the nascent American settlers and the First Nations had their own traditions of warfare by terror, which should not be glossed over. With that caveat, this book represents a significant advance in our understanding of the course of American empire.

[Stephen Hausmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a book

[Cynthia Kauffmann · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's hard to read about the shameful treatment of Native Nations.

[Beaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Depressing truth

[Dickie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very readable history of USG dispossession of native tribes' lands.

[Arthur Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always been fascinated by how little Native American's seem to remain relevant in American culture and history and how despite being here first they are always so routinely overlooked when looking back on our history, outside of being in opposition to American interests, or stock character's in Westerns. This book highlights the tragedy and resilience on the Native populations, particularly in the East. How they adapted to the independence of the U.S, how they signed treaties, formed confederacies and alliances, fought, capitulated, and made agonizing choices every step of the way to keep their land and communities safe.

This was an equally disheartening and hopeful read, as page after pages of abuses of power are described, but along with that just the ability of Native peoples to adapt and survive in admirable, and it is a testament that any still exist today given the American's relentless pursuit of their destruction as they claimed to have humanitarian aims. America's destruction reaches far, and this book lives on the front lines of suriving it, and thankfully, enough have and these stories can still be told. The blood on our hands in great while our memory is so poor.