The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of the Nation

by Colin G. Calloway

George Washington's place in the foundations of the Republic remains unrivalled. His life story--from his beginnings as a surveyor and farmer, to colonial soldier in the Virginia Regiment, leader of the Patriot cause, commander of the Continental Army, and finally first president of the United States--reflects the narrative of the nation he guided into existence. There is, rightfully, no more chronicled figure.

Yet American history has largely forgotten what Washington himself knew clearly: that the new Republic's fate depended less on grand rhetoric of independence and self-governance and more on land--Indian land. Colin G. Calloway's biography of the greatest founding father reveals in full the relationship between Washington and the Native leaders he dealt with intimately across the decades: Shingas, Tanaghrisson, Guyasuta, Attakullakulla, Bloody Fellow, Joseph Brant, Cornplanter, Red Jacket, and Little Turtle, among many others. Using the prism of Washington's life to bring focus to these figures and the tribes they represented--the Iroquois Confederacy, Lenape, Miami, Creek, Delaware--Calloway reveals how central their role truly was in Washington's, and therefore the nation's, foundational narrative.

Calloway gives the First Americans their due, revealing the full extent and complexity of the relationships between the man who rose to become the nation's most powerful figure and those whose power and dominion declined in almost equal degree during his lifetime. His book invites us to look at America's origins in a new light. The Indian World of George Washington is a brilliant portrait of both the most revered man in American history and those whose story during the tumultuous century in which the country was formed has, until now, been only partially told.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Biography, American Revolution, Native American, Audiobook

640 pages, Paperback

First published April 6, 2018

About the author

Colin G. Calloway is John Kimball Jr. 1943 Professor of History and Native American Studies at Dartmouth College. His previous books include A Scratch of the Pen and The Victory with No Name.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In the course of almost fifty years [George] Washington grew from a young man out of his depth in the cultural practices, foreign policies, and geopolitical strategies of Indian country to the most powerful man on the continent, whose policies and precedents affected the lives and futures of thousands of Indian people. He had spent his life grasping for Indian land, although he never called it that. He had fought alongside Indian allies, and he had waged war against Indian people, Indian towns, and Indian crops…When he entered Indian country as a young man, he addressed Indians as brothers and negotiated the terms of his relationship with them; as president, he addressed them as children and mandated policies for them. The settler colonial society he represented grew from one held back by Indian power and anxious for Indians allies to an imperial republic that was on the move, dismantling Indian country to create American property, and dismantling Indian ways of life to make way for American civilization.”
- Colin G. Calloway, The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of the Nation


The Indian World of George Washington takes an interesting approach in tackling a complex, roughly forty-year chunk of early American history. This is the saga of the fall of the eastern woodlands tribes before the relentless onslaught of white settlement, starting in 1754 and ending around 1797. Colin Calloway's twist is to filter this wide-ranging and multifaceted story through the meteoric rise of George Washington.

But this is not just another Washington biography. Rather than the dogged leader of Continental troops or the farsighted, standard-setting American president, Calloway presents a very different Washington: an ambitious wannabe aristocrat and land jobber. A young man who whined and complained and wheedled and speculated. A guy who was kind of a greedy bastard at times.

And somehow, down the line, achieved greatness.

***

Calloway divides The Indian World of George Washington into three sections.

The first, following Washington as a young man, covers the period of the French & Indian War. A lot of the incidents Calloway relates are well known, such as Washington killing Jumonville, and the defeat of General Edward Braddock on the road to Fort Duquesne. Nevertheless, he provides a good deal of amplification – the massacre at Jumonville’s Glen is quite well told – while also presenting a more nuanced portrait of a young GW on the make. Washington did great things in his life, yet for all the dignity and selflessness he exuded, he had extremely human desires, especially for pecuniary gain. This can be seen in the way he bought up land patents from his military command for pennies on the dollar, and then used his political connections to get first dibs on purchasing western real estate.

The middle section covers Washington during the American Revolution. Here we learn about how and why Washington earned the nickname “Town Destroyer.” Relative to other American presidents – such as Andrew Jackson – Washington doesn’t really have a reputation for ruthlessness. But the campaign he unleashed against the Iroquois, known as the Sullivan Expedition, certainly fits that descriptor. While it caused only minimal battle casualties – there was no Sand Creek or Wounded Knee moment – the destruction of food stores and shelter ensured the death of noncombatants.

The final section – detailing his presidency – offers a more mature Washington, attempting to secure both peace and the dispossession of Indian lands through diplomacy. Of course, diplomacy did not always work, nor did Washington’s flexing of federal muscle. During his tenure, for instance, Arthur St. Clair met with disaster at the Battle of the Wabash, some 900 of his men killed by a confederacy of Miami, Shawnee, and Delaware Indians.

***

Calloway is an expert in this field, and you sense that in his command of the material. However, while this is written for the general reader, I would note that it is more a work of scholarship than popular history. The subject matter is complicated, and involves a lot of different tribes and a lot of different tribal leaders, all with various interlocking alliances. While Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are well known, The Indian World of George Washington introduces figures such as Joseph Brant, Little Turtle, and Blue Jacket, who have not received nearly as much press. Though Calloway helpfully provides a list of Indian leaders and their affiliations, remembering where each leader and tribe fits into the overall scheme is a bit of a task.

Moreover, in terms of narrative style, this can be slow moving. In a tale chock-a-block with battles, massacres, ambushes, and torture, there are numerous opportunities for Calloway to provide a powerful, visceral scene filled with some pungent details and visceral descriptions. Unfortunately, Calloway never delivers. His narrative throughout is a bit pedestrian, especially given the opportunities he is presented.

As a matter of personal taste, I reserve my highest accolades for those rare books that combine the research and the writing. I did not find that here. There were a lot of times when The Indian World of George Washington felt flat, and when you are in a book this big (492 pages of text), with a subject this dense, the reading process starts to resemble a swim in mud.

***

Still, I can accept that Calloway’s purpose in life is not to entertain me, but to teach. To that end, this is a worthwhile read, even if it took me a bit longer to complete than I had anticipated. It provides an illuminating dimension to our first President, one that further takes us away from the sainted, marble-faced, impersonal demigod that stares out from the $1 bill. It is also a decent primer on American-Indian relations during the last stages of colonialism, and the early years of the Republic.

When Calloway ends his book, Washington has reached a sort of détente with the Indians, treating them as sovereign nations and receiving Indian visitors as he would any other foreign diplomat. In the final pages, however, seams are already beginning to show, and one catches a glimpse of the future as federal treaties are routinely violated by land-grasping settlers. Calloway’s finale ably sets the stage for the next acts in a tragedy that in some senses is ongoing: the Creek War in present day Alabama; Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal; the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears; and the bloody final push across the Mississippi, where the great horse cultures of the plains unknowingly awaited their destruction.

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

National Book Award Finalist for Nonfiction 2018. It is generally known that Washington joined the Revolutionary cause when the British took control of the acquisition and settlement of frontier land from the Colonists. His days as a surveyor led to his becoming an avaricious land speculator and he felt British interference in his land business was intolerable. For Washington, land acquisition was everything.

The Native Americans who lived on the land were an inconvenience. He chose to pursue treaties whenever he could; but was not opposed to burning their homes, their cornfields, and killing their people if necessary. This was Ethnic Cleansing on a grand scale, despite the fact that some tribes were significant allies in both the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War. Once he became President, he saw the United States’ future in western expansion. He did eventually modify his policies somewhat—pursuing peaceful acquisition and Indian assimilation to Colonial life whenever possible. Policies that were largely ignored by the frontier settlers.

This is an overwhelmingly depressing story of how the various Native American tribes were dispossessed of their land through exploitive treaties that resulted in the destruction of their culture and people. Calloway provides an informative recounting of the governance, military operations, and diplomacy that took place in the late 18th century. Recommend.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very detailed book about the impact that George Washington had on Native American tribes from his early times as a surveyor to his death. It is also a book about British and American Indian policy.

I have read several books by Calloway. Two words come together to describe Colin Calloway's writing. "Thorough" and "Dry". If you are a student or researcher, you cannot go wrong with his books. The detail and work that goes into his writing is incredible. If you want an overview or something that is less taxing, I would not recommend you read his books. For detail and research, I give this book a 5-star rating. For readability, I give it 2 stars. This averages out to a 3 -star rating.

[Terri · Rating 5 out of 5]

George Washington's nickname was "Conotocaurius" (Town Destroyer/Burner) by the Iroquois Native Americans. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of this well-researched book of American history that was never taught to us in school. Eye opening explanation of George Washington, his family and how they "acquired" the lands that they desired.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Washington knew what the Indians knew: the war in the West was a war for Indian land”. “In Washington’s day, the government dealt with Indians as foreign nations rather than domestic subjects.” So, encroaching on the lands of others has been US foreign policy since day one (and even before). Natives accurately called George Washington “Conotocarious” which means “Town Destroyer” or “Devourer of Villages”. Washington even took pride in the name. George was originally a surveyor. “Surveyors were the outriders of advancing settler society intent on turning Indian homelands and hunting territories into a commodity and the Indians knew it.” The surveyor’s compass was called “The Land Stealer”. Virginia was the forefront of westward expansion and this placed Washington directly where the pressure was greatest to remove Native tribes. Virginians willing to slaughter Natives, officially got for one scalp the same pay they got for working as a laborer for three months. So, state subsidized murder is an American tradition. Historian James Merrill said Washington “was instrumental in the dispossession, defeat, exploitation, and marginalization of Indian peoples.” And he largely used/followed Native American trails and freely ate Native foods and used Native herbal remedies while doing so. He marries a woman (Martha) with 200 slaves and soon jacks the number up to 300, because – hey – you just can’t have enough slaves when you are morally bankrupt.

The English wanted to enclose and divvy up the landscape while Natives were naturally opposed. The planters grew single crops which soon sickened the land and soon moved on to destroy the next bit while the Natives (there for the long haul) planted together corn, beans and squash and left them fallow to replenish the soil. “Indians were far more likely than British or colonial soldiers to spare the lives of their enemies.” Yet, “Indians were seven times more likely to be killed than captured.” The French were known to the Indians to be generous, the British were not. Britain knew that the further inland/west, settlers went, the less they would purchase British goods and help Britain. Yet boys will be boys and so the settlers did what all white sociopaths do – whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted. Colonial elites “developed a ‘settler political theory’ that included the right to acquire property by dispossessing and supplanting Native peoples without restriction or interference from imperial center.” In those days, 19 out of 20 colonists made their living through farming. Washington fought a defensive war against the British but an offensive one against the Native Americans. Washington won no battles and even early in the Revolution he was lackluster. “He was always more interested in Indian lands than in Indian allies.” General John Stark eloquently captured the opinion of Washington and others when he said, “We shall never be safe, in this country, until an Expedition is Carried into the Indians Country, & Effectually, Root out these nefarious Wretches, from the face of the Earth.” Yuck. Washington’s job was “to push the Indians as far as possible from the American frontiers… …and make the destruction of their settlements so final and complete as to put it out of their power to derive the smallest succor from them in case they should return this season.” Double yuck.

His army lived off the land as they went, noting “well-built towns, vast fields of corn, beans, squash, plum and cherry trees”. A traveling surgeon wrote he couldn’t imagine how the troops were going to be able to destroy all of it. It was noted that some officers had qualms about what they were doing. Non-combatants were usually killed by the army because taking them captive was too much work. Excuse me, we’ve really enjoyed your food, now we have to kill you and take your land, all so our great-great grand-kids can be told that no one has the right to take THEIR land! Ha ha… The destruction of native orchards was a real crime. Those puppies take a long time to grow. Israel cuts down Palestinian olive trees today for the same reason – to racially destroy the culture, lifestyle, livelihoods of “the other”. We want to make sure you have nothing to return home too. Campaigns that Washington personally ordered “caused untold human misery.” These pre-Rev War expeditions gave the Iroquois only greater allegiance to the British. The rebels now clearly “intended to steal their country and destroy them.” One historian comically noted that Washington was a nationalist before there was a nation. Seneca chiefs said when Washington’s name was mentioned “women look behind them and men turn pale and our children cling to the neck of their mothers.” The idea was simple, the more Iroquois lands you could steal before the end of the Revolutionary War was over, the better the case you could make to the British if you win the war. Not all leaders saw the prize at the end of the rainbow, but Washington clearly was banking on it. We are talking New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. All stolen by force, and no school kid in America will ever be taught about it in school. Why go for a “hollow victory” post-war if you get only the measly eastern seaboard, when with a simple “race war” you can take your all-white fantasyland all the way to the Mississippi River?

On eyewitness wrote, “the Country taulks of Nothing but killing Indians & taking possession of their lands.” Crawford’s torture and execution is skillfully used as American propaganda to make “killing Indians a patriotic act.” “The slaughter at Gnadenhutten was downplayed” and replaced with the story: “Indians had fought like savages to kill the nation at its birth”. “They must atone for their crimes by forfeiting their lands.” Settler Colonialism, Patrick Wolfe has told us, operates on the “logic of elimination.” Washington “realized his vision for the United States meant prying the continent from the peoples who inhabited it.” I’ll only “extirpate” your ass if you don’t cheerfully give up your digs for us entitled white men. Washington, America’s first gambler “owned around 58,000 acres of land west of the Alleghenies by the end of the Revolution” and he was ready to collect. In spite of his insider dealings, he saw the nation as the “chief beneficiary”. After the Revolution, one could no longer dispute Washington’s land claims. And so, even someone as virtuous as Washington morally stumbled, according to biographer John Ferling. Take this lovely comment of GW: “Our settlements will as certainly cause the Savage as the Wolf to retire: both being beasts of prey tho’ they differ in shape.”

Hamilton saw the Natives as to be removed because otherwise they would naturally ally with Britain or Spain against them. Hamilton wanted a standing army to take them out. Historian Alan Taylor says the elites were worried about class war or civil war unless the immigrants could steal their lebensraum westward. Land theft was an escape valve as the “social order combined inequality with opportunity”. “Certainly, Washington, Knox and Jefferson never doubted they could take away the Indian’s lands.” Washington’s main shtick was: “peace and justice if possible, extermination if necessary.” In return, the Indians got “civilization” which meant no more hunting (like Dick Cheney and Donald trump’s kids live to do) but they were free to do back-breaking non-subsidized non-industrial agriculture somewhere (not here) – until that land was also stolen. You needed a strong government and military to pull that robbery off and Colin calls the new nation “a nation born in war”. For Hamilton, selling this stolen land was also a way to pay off the millions of dollars of national debt. If settlers weren’t protected by your military, you’d lose land sales and speculators which snatch the real profit. Not to be outdone, Thomas Jefferson said, “I hope we shall give the Indians a thorough drubbing this summer.” Washington then literally offers the Indians “civilization or death”. Translation: “Washington’s civilization program constituted genocide by another name.” At one point, he fears there is no alternative left “but the sword”. Neither diplomacy and fairness were allowed on the foreign policy table. Historian Susan Sleeper-Smith sees evidence that Washington also thought kidnapping Indian women to be advantageous to his cause.

In New England, many logically opposed to the war saying it stemmed “from a wish on the part of the United States to obtain lands to which they had no claim.” Many correspondents to Washington criticized his not “giving peace a chance.” One congressman was upset that three years and millions of dollars had been spent, but no citizen knew why was the war fought. One commissioner of Indian affairs said you’d have to be crazy to not sympathize with the Indians. Imagine if our teachers told us Washington invaded the Iroquois? Knox tries to temper Washington, reminding how it looks to Europe if we are seen as attacking benign foreign nations. Indian killing and land theft between 1790 and 1796 cost 5 million dollars (5/6 of federal expenditures for the period). Knox famously predicted back then, “A future historian may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race with sable colors.” What was destroyed? Communal fields, family farms, native plants, and tribal ethics of sharing and reciprocity. Washington knowingly replaces it all with monocrops that will deplete the soil and throw the land out of the balance achieved by its past residents. Washington leads a clear move towards a biracial society and personally had more than 300 slaves in 1799. “He had spent his life grasping for native land.” Big government alone had laid the way for western expansion. And so, “the first President initiated policies that committed the United States to an imperial path.” After Washington, Jefferson opted to lure natives into debt as a new way to dispossess them. Just as Coltrane and Miles had their own strong style in creating and giving, so each early President had their own strong style in destroying and taking. By the end of this magnificent book, “U.S. Indian policy had veered from assimilation in the name of ‘civilization’ to ethnic cleansing under the name of removal.” I can’t rank this revelatory book highly enough. Bravo…

[Bob H · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even after all the books written about George Washington, this is an important new look at the first president, and focused on his dealings with the native peoples of the colonial American frontier. It's well-researched, with good and pertinent maps and illustrations, with clear prose and narrative, and it's not a flattering portrait. We find Washington, as a young man, begin as a land surveyor, and quickly become a speculator in frontier lands, at a time when land speculators -- especially in Virginia, we're told -- would seek to divide up, survey, and sell the lands west of the Appalachians to eager settlers. These lands -- western New York and Pennsylvania, the Ohio and Tennessee river valleys, the trans-Appalachian south -- were, of course, occupied by cohesive and vibrant Indian civilizations, people who were quick to see surveyors as a threat.

We read of Washington's transition into the Virginia militia and his inauspicious start to his military career, at a time when the native peoples began to contest the mid-18th Century British-American frontier encroachment and would contest it with force, and would find willing allies in the French. Washington's first military expedition would end with his defeat in 1754 at Ft. Necessity, and start the French and Indian War (and lead to a world war, the Seven Years' War). His second expedition, with regular British soldiers under Gen. Braddock, would fail to take the French-Indian fort at present-day Pittsburgh, and end in a massacre. The subsequent war would be one with much savagery, notably that of American colonial forces.

Much of Washington's correspondence survived this period, and he comes off, in this book's telling, as moody, whiny, jealous of other officers, quick to shift blame. He does learn that Indian methods of frontier fighting, and Indian allies, could be useful, which would inform his strategy in the subsequent Revolution -- a Revolution started, in part, by Britain's decision in 1763, the French war over, to placate the native peoples and bar American emigration across the mountains westward into Indian lands.

Still, the theme that Mr. Calloway keeps returning to, is that while Washington might negotiate with the native nations, and at times seek their help, his primary interest was in their lands. Indeed, by the end of the Revolution, Washington had personal title to 58,000 acres west of the Alleghenies, and at the peace treaty in Paris, with no Indians among the negotiators, the British would blithely concede the lands west of the Appalachians.

We read of the subsequent westward American expansion, and one last campaign by a confederation of Indian nations in the Ohio valley to resist, ultimately by armed force. Indeed, the native American peoples would win the greatest victory they would ever know, their coalition's 1791 defeat of Gen. St. Clair's army at the Wabash. The subsequent warfare, and ultimate U.S. victory, would take up much of Washington's presidency. Perhaps it was fated to be; the author notes that a terrible smallpox epidemic would, in the last years of the 18th Century, devastate the native peoples from the Appalachians to the Pacific and weaken any further resistance. The U.S. would grow on the lands thus surveyed and lost. It is an ugly side of Washington's life and legacy, and of the nation's founding, but it is an important story. Highest recommendation.

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

As it attempted to be unbiased, this book really only presented the view of the winners or European imperials. For the full historical context of this time period and subject matter, this book would need to be paired with another book that provides the experience of Native Americans.

[Rama Rao · Rating 4 out of 5]

Formative years: President Washington’s efforts to reform the new nation on Native American land

George Washington spent his life turning the Native American land for the new republic as well as his personal real estate. He believed that land acquired for a song would sell for a fortune. When European immigrants flooded the country, he owned extensive lands in what is now known as VA, WV, MD and PA. White immigrants settled in western territories in United States, they helped entrench slave labor. Eventually the new immigrants became slave-owners. Slavery and forcible occupation of lands from Native American tribes became the norm of the day. In the American society, both slavery and Native American mistreatments were divisive, dominating, illegal under colonial laws and downright immoral according Christian teachings. This was painful to the first president, but he also had the responsibility to unite the country and serve the interest of fringe groups which benefited the young nation. For example, he did not express his views on slowing the pace of slavery or respect the treaty with native tribes and their sovereignty. Conservatives frowned upon any idea that would grant rights or concessions to blacks or elevate Natives to the same level as white Americans. But Washington needed native tribes on his side so that he could fight off any military advances from English from the north or Spanish from south. He was also very wary of fierce war between revolutionary France and English Monarchy that would have divided English-loyalists and American patriots in United States. He had to ensure that natives will not aid English or French forces in any war that may ensue.

The first President’s Native American policies eroded their rights he claimed to protect and undermined the tribal sovereignty. Assaults on the resources of Native population continued to soar until their extinction. During almost fifty years of his life, the new nation’s culture, practices, foreign policies and geopolitical strategies evolved. He fought alongside native American allies in one war, and waged war against other tribes in another war. But he also enjoyed diplomacy when needed to enhance the power of federal political structure. He made controversial laws that granted Natives their sovereignty and made laws alongside so that they are not independent to make treaties with other colonial powers. They are to make treaty only with U.S and nobody else. The president and his supporters expected that native Americans left their hunting life-styles and became agriculturists and confirmed to Christian standards as mandated by boarding schools. When the Natives adapted to this way of living and became slave-owners and lived like white immigrants, the conservative population resented this change and wanted Native Americans to live as under-class but keep the lands for further white occupation. It was a sad irony to the new nation, but English monarchy kept the new democracy under check by constantly looking for cracks in the new republic and its relationship with Native Americans. The new America was using racial and slavery politics at astonishing scale and English expected that it was a matter of time that a breakdown may occur and beat the new republic in its own territory. But George Washington was one step ahead. He developed cozy relationship with well-known tribes like; Mohawks, Senecas, Oneidas, Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Creeks. He knew that these tribes were vital to the national security, and survival of a fragile democracy amongst formidable adversaries like England, France and Spain. The president also knew that the new immigrants coming from Europe needed land and will inevitably occupy the Native American lands that will eventually be settled in a conflict and use of force. The federal government found itself weak during the formative years. It was very vulnerable to political chaos domestically as well as due to foreign powers.

I enjoyed reading this comprehensive work that recounts the relationship between Native Americans and George Washington that lasted much of his life. Here, Professor Colin Calloway of Dartmouth College reexamines the highs and lows of George Washington’s legacy as the first president.

[Ron Ross · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you finish reading this book you are definitely tenacious. This book was not a page turner, very monotonous. I had hoped that this book would have some particulars on George Washington and his involvement with American Indians. Some books I’ve read take a few pages to give me the direction to paint the word pictures that the author is trying to stress. This book never gave me that reaction. The author has done a great deal of research however it seemed to me that the author tried to get another book out of previous research. I checked to see previous books that this author wrote and bingo this writer has several books about American Indians, this one just has George Washington’s name on the title. Perhaps this author should read Peter Cozzens book “The Earth is Weeping”. That book gives a great deal on information about the American Indians and as a reader I felt very emotional for the Indians. I just get tired of writers judging history by current ideologies and principles and not the historical era that the subject lived. Calloway’s book just had the same theme Indians good, Washington bad.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Yes, but do you have a flag?" (credit: Eddie Izzard)

A comprehensive, if sometimes dense, history of George Washington's interactions with indigenous peoples of America across his life as surveyor, British subject, Soldier, Revolutionary general, and President.

Calloway's 2018 survey of Washington and the Amer. Indians is less about Washington himself than it is about the Revolutionary generation's interactions with the dozens of tribes and hundreds of tribal leaders they encountered from the 1750s through the end of the century. Washington's experience serves as a representative sample of how the landed gentry viewed the various tribes and their relationships with them.

Let's just say it was complicated. It's simplistic and juvenile to lump all colonists together with a uniform view of the indigenous tribes just as it's simplistic and juvenile to assume all tribes acted the same. Some colonists/revolutionaries were very sympathetic and honorable towards the various tribes, many were not. Some recognized the tension between honoring treaty obligations and property boundaries with a populace that saw little problem with squatting on fertile open land (in part because nobody was within miles of it). Some tribes were peacable and wanted to attempt to coexist with the Europeans, others wanted to wage war, others wanted to leverage the European presence to their own advantage in their own internecine battles with other tribes.

Calloway does a decent job laying out these internal and external conflicts with Washington and the myriad tribal leaders (though he is far too credulous with stories of "the settlers kidnapped by war parties loved tribal life so much they didn't want to leave!" when there's ample evidence on the other side of the ledger).

Washington himself comes across as REALLY REALLY REALLY interested in land speculation and the profits to be gained by it. This does not diminish Washington as a man or leader (his early "skills" as a General are something else entirely -- let's face it -- he wasn't that good and Calloway recounts his troubles very well), but places him firmly within his class and time. In a land with billions of open acreage, it's natural for a population that revered real property and title to think they hit the motherlode. And they kind of did....but for the people that were there.

And that's where the inevitable and irreconcilable conflict between the Europeans and indigenous tribes comes in. A culture that valued real property and land title and agriculture vs largely nomadic tribes that subsisted on farming. To be pithy, the foreignness of the tribal view towards ownership is like the guy in the gym that is working on one machine but claims he's using 10 other machines as part of his "circuit." The two approaches are so opposed, one had to adapt to the other, and one side did (though not without cost).

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is pretty dense, which made it a little hard for me to retain specific information in it, but the overall story it tells and the way it recontextualizes George Washington's life is interesting and valuable.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the last of the National Book Awards shortlist books I was able to read before the awards, but I'm a little slow getting to a review! I found it a bit of a slow read as well. While the information it contained was fascinating, the writing didn't do the material justice. It did make me realize that there was an amazing amount of diversity and inter-tribal politicking among Native Americans during Washington's times that gets completely glossed over in most histories. There were an incredible number of people involved in the relationships between the early U.S. and Native Americans and the author. At times it felt like the author was trying to cover them all by giving us long lists of names. There wasn't enough background given about any one person for me to feel really invested in their story.

My favorite part about this book was actually the way it connected to other books I'd read. There was clearly a lot of racism being used as a convenient excuse for colonialism, as per Locke's theories in the National Book Aware shortlisted bio about him. And the way George Washington and other early government officials leveraged their positions for financial gain was a great illustration of the way the US has always been run by people with a vested interest in protecting corporations, as discussed in National Book Award shortlisted We the Corporations. I always love when books intersect like this. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd recommend this shortlist member as a fun read, but it certainly was an educational one.This review was originally posted on Doing Dewey

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A broad, well-written and insightful work.

Calloway ably covers how Washington’s self-interest, ignorance and prejudice influenced his dealing with the natives, and emphasizes a common theme throughout all of his dealings with the Indians: Washington really wanted to treat the tribes fairly, but still wanted their land even more. He covers Washington’s ideas of turning the Indians into farmers and why it didn’t work, how difficult it was to make a lasting peace when the settlers kept expanding west, and why the government’s intervention in local Indian wars always ended up favoring the settlers. Calloway also does a great job linking Indian affairs to the land disputes between European powers, to the colonists’ westward expansion, and to American independence. He also does a good job linking the clash between white and Indian ideas in such areas as property rights.

The narrative can get slow or dense at times. The coverage of the wars are lively, but the sections on Indian disputes and diplomacy can get a bit tedious. Also, throughout the book Washington always remains a little more fleshed-out than the Indian figures.

Still, a well-researched and readable work.

[Marcia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is amazing. If you have any interest in the early years of this country, the Native Americans, and our first president— read this book. I knew little about Washington as a person, only as I was taught about him in school. I also knew little about the Native American tribes and their leaders at that time. This book opened a window on what really happened in our country's early history and the role Washington and the Native Americans played. It's a bit long but worth the read. Very well researched and written. (I'm reviewing an advance copy edition I received.)

[William Bahr · Rating 5 out of 5]

A major takeaway of this book: What name did the Indians give both George Washington and his great-grandfather John? “Town Destroyer”! It was a moniker George wore with pride. In a major way, he often felt he had to “destroy an Indian village to save it.” And, if his destruction of Indian lives was not immediate, it was eventual in that the burning of crops led to starvation when the Indians did not find food through difficult migration.

This book is not for the casual reader. It is a dense, scholarly work, almost to the point of being a reference book, with seemingly few details too small to be left out. Its focus is the Indians of George Washington’s world, a subject mostly hidden and often glossed over in the vast majority of Washington literature. Yes, many of us knew that this Indian world was not monolithic, that interests differed among the tribes, and that tribes often pitted the French, the British, the Americans, and, indeed, other Indian tribes against one another to save their land from exploitation/confiscation. But did we know such interesting details that most of Washington’s Indian allies deserted him before Fort Necessity, then fought for the French there at Fort Necessity, and then saved Washington’s force from complete annihilation by making noises suggesting to the French that a British relief force was soon to rescue Washington, prompting a quick settlement for Washington’s surrender and safe release? Such was the sophistication of Indian strategies to not let one European force get too powerful.

In following Washington’s life on a mostly chronological basis, the author weaves a rich tapestry but with much of the underside threadwork showing, akin to taking one on a full tour of a sausage factory. The author pulls no punches, often calling Washington a liar in his dealings with Indians. Regardless of Washington’s promises and his own previous experience in having in part fought the British for denying him land in Indian territory, those treaties he himself signed invariably led to European immigration he later felt helpless to stop.

Washington tried to square and rationalize his binary choice of converting Indians to European customs or “extirpating” them. His justification for the forced assimilation? He believed his enlightened English culture was superior. English law pronounced that mixing your hands with the soil made it yours, so long as you could defend it. In dealing with Indians, Washington confronted two different paradigms: savage hunters and collective (tribal) rights versus civilized farmers and individual rights. It was no mystery that Washington came down on the side of “civilization’s” territorial imperative (walls and fences for private property were better than open communal land), as Washington was a surveyor since the age of sixteen. He had spent his whole life measuring and acquiring land. Thus Washington apparently had few qualms about unleashing the "Indian-extirpating” General John Sullivan in the Mohawk Valley (NY) during the Revolutionary War and later General “Mad” Anthony Wayne at Fallen Timbers (near Toledo, OH).

In reading this book, keep in mind a letter Washington wrote to John Banister in 1778: "I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward." For Washington himself, this must have obviously and personally meant land in the Northwest Territory. Of course, Washington showed a talent for living, learning, and mending his moral failings on the way to the evolved "marble man" perfection his character eventually became. Yet his final views on Indians never came close to being on par with his “only unavoidable subject of regret” (keeping slaves).

Bottom line and as a fellow author, I'd say the book is extremely well done and highly recommended for a view of Washington not seen before.

[Mikey Boyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed this much more than I thought I would. Calloway does his best to not only to highlight the Northeastern Indian side of the founding of the United States, but also the mindset of George Washington from a young Virginia land surveyor to the President of the United States. The world that he grew up in was influenced heavily by Indigenous people, a fact that Washington himself and the United States as a whole have obfuscated over the years.

I read this in tandem with "Washington: A Life" by Ron Chernow, which, while very enjoyable, fell short when it came to examining his attitudes, dealings, and policy toward the various Indigenous tribes he encountered and dispossessed. While Chernow left much of these dealings to the margins of his work, there for anyone who would like to dig deeper, Calloway dives into the various complicated dynamics of America's first foreign policy crisis. Doing his best to compile what we know of various tribes' societies and foreign policy (something that is often difficult due to American ignorance, Indigenous oral history, and genocidal actions), Calloway presents the conflict as not one of the inevitable stampede of civilization and progress trampling the proud Indian, but of an American imperial project that required the theft of land and resources to make way for a system that itself relied on the theft of labor from slaves.

While Calloway cannot entirely ignore the deification of Washington that often clouds biographies about him (it's hard not to! For the context of the time, he was exceptional!), he does a fine job presenting a man who's ambition and greed often came into conflict with his ideals for a representative republic that enshrined basic human rights into its government's creed. Unlike other biographers (looking at you, Chernow), Calloway is able to appropriately situate these tribes in the American story. They are far more important to the founding of this country than Washington, his contemporaries, historians after the fact, and the American education system, would like to admit.

Calloway also hits on the truth of Washington and the founding: the idealized republic he envisioned was one that was envisioned for a small sect of the country, namely rich white men. By prioritizing land and capitalism to the expansion of America, he necessitated dispossession of Indigenous people and the exploitation of labor from Black slaves. No matter what he espoused, no matter the beautiful language that his ideals were caked in, the country that Washington envisioned could not be built without those cruelties. We know he felt shame, he said so as much. But much like his inability to reconcile his comforting lifestyle with his eventual opposition to slavery, he could not reconcile his greed for land with his vision for a just republic. Washington, much like the other founders, sought to build a monument to the enlightenment upon a hideous foundation of atrocities. Calloway does a better job than most of examining the foundation of that monument instead of the monument itself.

Calloway's book, while not perfect and ultimately still through the lens of someone raised in this imperfect education system, is a good step in the correction of Indigenous American history.

[Jory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for book group this month. Washington's journals provided a huge amount of information to scholar Colin Calloway as he took a hard look at our nation's first president's interest in land expansion and the diplomacy he carried out with numerous Indian nations in the mid-late 1700s. Calloway definitely reinforces that land was wealth, and the amount of land that European settlers (like Washington's family) assumed was theirs, offers a good look at our early wealth in this country: stolen land.

[Dorothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

LOTS of information. Some what dry and difficult to read.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book

This is an academic book that reads like an academic book. I'm not an historian, so much of this history was eye opening for me. Is known of the treaties and broken treaties with Native Americans, but hasn't realized how much this has begun with Washington's presidency. He set the precedent for US/Indian relationships.

[James Bechtel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Colin Calloway's study provides a wealth of excellent historical context to the problems, conflicts, and proposed solutions relating to Indigenous Americans in the colonial and early national decades of the country. Resistance and adaptation.

[Jefferson Coombs · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was very interesting to think about the early history of the country with the Native Americans as the main players rather than as a sidebar. I found his treatment of Washington to be pretty fair. He wasn't perfect but mostly he had good intentions and everyone is human and seeks to gain benefit for themselves.

[Dana · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was interesting. I learned lots of little tidbits I also found interesting.

[Ted Hunt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I took a week long Gilder Lehrman class at my alma mater, Dartmouth College, in the summer of 2016, and it was taught by Colin Calloway, so I'm a bit partial to this book. I found that it really succeeded in meeting its goal of putting the world of the American Indians, most notably their interaction with the European colonists (and then American citizens), right at the center of the history of the nation in the last half of the eighteenth century. There was never any doubt that the contest between Britain and France for the loyalty of the native tribes was the main cause of the French and Indian (Seven Years) War of 1754-1763. And the book makes it clear that the outcome of that war had a lot to do with the success (or lack thereof) of the diplomacy between the various European powers and the natives. The author then goes on to make a convincing case that the deterioration of the relationship between the British government and the American colonists post-1763 was largely due to issues involving the Indians. The Proclamation of 1763, designed to keep the colonists east of the Appalachian Mountains so that they would not infringe on native land, was seen by many Americans as the first "attack" on their freedoms, and Pontiac's War of that same year necessitated the stationing of a permanent standing British army within the colonies, with Parliament passing a series of revenue-raising measures designed to get the Americans to take on at least part of the cost of maintaining those troops. The book proposes that one of the big reasons that Washington became a leader of the rebellion was that British measures were prohibiting him from fully profiting from the land speculation in which he was engaged in the Ohio country. There is a substantial amount of time spent describing the 1779 Sullivan campaign in Western New York, ordered by Washington, that cemented his nickname among the Haudenosaunee as "Town Destroyer." Once Washington became president, much, if not the majority of his "foreign policy" revolved around Indian diplomacy, and the book contends that the very first tensions over state vs. federal authority came over the question of who had the right to negotiate treaties with the native tribes. Much of Washington's energies were spent in trying (unsuccessfully) to get the natives to adopt the American version of "civilization" as a way to insure their survival, although Calloway demonstrates that even those tribes who adopted come of the trappings of American life never gave up their Indian identity. In the end, Washington's actions during his adult life, as a land speculator, general, and president, helped to establish the patterns of expansion that did so much harm to the native tribes. But I was appreciative of the author's final thoughts on Washington's legacy as president, for while his approach to the natives was acquisitive and paternalistic, it did contain a certain degree of humanity, as it did not embrace the ethnic cleansing, genocidal policies of many of his successors in the White House.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review title: Founding Father, Town Destroyer

Early in his career as a military leader facing the Native Americans in battle, George Washington was given the Native American name Conotocarious, meaning "Town Destroyer." While we learn the outline of Washington's career in school, his time in the western wilderness of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Ohio Valley is often brushed over. Calloway has written this history to fill in the brush strokes and reveal how and how much Washington affected and was affected by the Indian nations on the borders of the colonies he defended and expanded and then the young country he lead.

Calloway's longish history is at times plodding, but what it lacks in polish it makes up in completeness as he follows the influence on and the influence of Washington and his Indian "brothers", as he called them in his early days, and "children" as he called them in his days as President of the United States and Father of the new republic. Calloway mostly sticks with the term Indian throughout as it was the term used by contemporaries in his primary sources.

From the beginning of the arrival of European adventurers on the East coast of the continent the tempestuous relationship seemed predestined as foreign diseases wiped out large percentages of native populations before aggressive settlers in search of rich real estate began challenging the surviving native Americans for their hunting and tribal lands. Speculators (including Washington) claimed title by colonial charter, eminent domain and lightly-documented survey records, leading to frontier clashes when the British and French, engaged in a European war, armed their own Indian allies and the young Washington led a ragtag bunch of militia and Indians to defeat in western Pennsylvania in the first battles of the French and Indian War in the middle of the 18th century. While alliances were shifting and often shaky, it was clear to one native American what the cause and the outcome would be: "It is plain you white people are the cause of this war; why do not you and the French fight in the old country, and on the sea. Why do you come to fight on our land? This makes every body believe, you want to take the land from us by force, and settle it." (P. 154)

After the British and French settled their differences, and after a brief Indian-lead effort known as Pontiac's War (the minor but pivotal battle being fought at Bushy Run in Pennsylvania about 10 miles from where I live) , Calloway quotes Joseph Ellis, "at bottom lurked a basic conflict about the future of the Ohio Country: Washington believed it was open to settlement; the British government believed it was closed; and the Indians believed it was theirs." (P. 184) Washington certainly tried to make some of it his by acquiring thousands of acres in Pennsylvania, Ohio, western Virginia, and Kentucky before finding his rising career as a planter-gentleman first interrupted and then bolstered by his military performance in the Revolution. As Calloway writes, the maturing Washington learned from his poor performance and insensitive Indian relations in the French and Indian War to become the successful and revered leader of the patriot army and eventually the new republic's government. After the revolution, American thoughts--and Washington's--turned to uniting and expanding the new country inland. The outcome of the revolution --a victorious republic bound by the desire to expand west into "vacant" native land. (P. 283)

Even after the successful Revolutionary War to establish the American republic, and the ratification of the Constitution which established a workable federal government to maintain it, the "Indian World" of Calloway's title still shaped the country's formation and subsequent political and geographical history. The first treaty signed and ratified by congress under the Constitution was a treaty with southern Creek native Americans (P. 370), and during the process Washington made the first (and last) appearance of a sitting president in the Senate cheers to seek the advice and consent of the Senate as required by the Constitution. It was, says Calloway, "a fiasco" (P. 358-360). The Senate felt Washington expected a quick ratification with no questions asked, while the senators conducted a vigorous debate on the meaning and process meant by the seemingly simple phrase "advise and consent". "'This defeats every purpose of my coming here!' exclaimed Washington in exasperation" (P. 359).

In Calloway's own admission, the young Washington was a callow, ambitious, and unlikable career climber, who matured in his military ability and political wisdom to rightly take his place as the beloved Father of his country and his native "children". While he meant well in his dealings with Indians, certainly when compared to many of his contemporaries, the contradiction between Washington's stated policy of treating Indians justly and peacefully through treaties and the nation's relentless westward drive to acquire and convert native lands to white ownership was never resolved in Washington's lifetime or since. Calloway never shies from this harsh truth but never condemns Washington from a modern perspective. His narrative style sometimes is dry, and the thread can get lost in the details of dozens of native names and tribes, but Indian World is authoritatively documented from primary sources and stands as a worthy and unique study of the influence of the Indian world in shaping our world today.

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a book to be read in one sitting. However, it is a well-researched account accessible to the non-specialist. I was surprised how little I knew about the Indian policies articulated by Washington and their lasting affect. The book also describes Indians as actors, a real force to be reckoned with in the colonial period and the early years of nationhood.

[Chris Chester · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In the course of almost fifty years Washington grew from a young man out of his depth in the cultural practices, foreign policies, and geopolitical strategies of Indian country to the most powerful man on the continent, whose policies and precedents affected the lives and futures of thousands of Indian people. He had spent his life grasping for Indian land, although he never called it that. He had fought alongside Indian allies, and he had waged war against Indian people, Indian towns, and Indian crops…When he entered Indian country as a young man, he addressed Indians as brothers and negotiated the terms of his relationship with them; as president, he addressed them as children and mandated policies for them. The settler colonial society he represented grew from one held back by Indian power and anxious for Indians allies to an imperial republic that was on the move, dismantling Indian country to create American property, and dismantling Indian ways of life to make way for American civilization.”

What an incredibly interesting reframing of the founding of our country and the life and career of our first President.

In the shallower versions of history depicted in popular media and taught in the classroom, Washington is a figure who just seems to appear out of the mists. He is the marshal of Revolutionary War heroics and the steward of a budding Republic. When he resists calls to turn his office into a monarchy, instead of a king he becomes almost a deity of American folk history.

By framing Washington's career instead on the context of his relationship with Native peoples, Calloway lands on a depiction of Washington much more in line with contemporary American character.

In the beginning, a young Washington is depicted as an inexperienced and greedy striver, a hustler. His early military career in the French and Indian War is characterized mostly by failure. He oversells his capacity for waging war in Native lands and frequently gets men killed for his mistakes. The massacre at Jumonville Glen that comes as a consequence of his naivete touches off a world war.

In the lands west of the Appalachian, Washington sees his opportunity to make himself rich. He spends much of his youth trying to snap up the rights to choice plots as cheaply as he can, often by buying up land patents awarded to men who served in his military command for pennies on the dollar, then trying to lobby for those titles as though its on his men's behalf.

Indeed, this penchant for land speculation seems to be what got Washington involved with the Revolutionary cause to begin with. There's no shortage of popular depictions of the fallout from the Stamp Act (made necessary by the bumbling of Western military endeavors by Washington and his colonial ilk), but what of the Quebec Act? It was this British attempt to restrain the budding colonies by nullifying their often dubious claims to Indian land that incensed Washington and prompted calls from freedom from tyranny.

It really casts the young country in a different light. That so monumental a break could happen because of rapacious land speculation... well, it puts the ensuing history of the country into sudden alignment.

The second two sections of the book strays much closer to conventional history than the first. Calloway doesn't talk a whole lot about the American Revolution itself, but instead focuses on how tribes' alliances with the British essentially set the stage for the violence and plunder that was to follow. And when Washington ultimately becomes President, his situation starts to become more sympathetic as he tries to chart the course for a new country and weigh the conflicting obligations he holds to the new federal republican, to the sovereignty of the states, to the white settlers who pushed the boundaries of Indian land and to the tribes with whom he owed obligations by treaties.

What is less sympathetic is the assumption that undergirded all his choices -- that the U.S. would eventually take and cultivate land rightly belonging to Native peoples.

I definitely think this framing is Calloway's strongest suit. His ability to apply his lens to the rapid developments in American history at that point is consistent and backed by a wealth of research. I don't get the sense that he was necessarily breaking a lot of ground not covered by other Washington scholars, but his relentless focus has the effect of not letting Washington the man off the hook, no matter how great he may have been in other respects.

While I did greatly enjoy the work, I do have to knock off a star for readability. I understand that describing the intricacies of tribal diplomacy at any given point in any given region is going to be difficult, but there were stretches of this book that felt like a slog. And while there were no shortage of recurring characters of all shades, only a handful of them like Tanaghrisson or maybe Joseph Brant really leapt off the page. I feel like it was a missed opportunity.

Still, this is the kind of book that seems likely to stay with you long after you're done. I don't know that I'll ever look at the early Republican quite the same way again.

[Charles Inglin · Rating 5 out of 5]

You'll never look at George Washington the same after reading this rather lengthy and comprehensive work. And all in all, that's a good thing. Washington emerges as a complex and very human person rather than the near mythological hero of grade school texts.
Washington was very much a man of his times and of his class, the Virginian planters. As a young man he was ambitious to promote himself and to build a fortune. The former he attempted to achieve by putting himself forward for military office in the militia and talking his way into positions he was really unqualified for. His initial forays to the frontier in the maneuvering with the French on the Ohio were disastrous, helping to bring on the French and Indian War. Washington's lack of familiarity with the complexities of Indian diplomacy and society may have allowed an anti-French Seneca to "play" him, resulting in the de Jumonville murder. Washington likely took liberties with his account of his services to the Braddock expedition. But as colonel of the Virginia regiment Washington did as well as could be expected with limited resources on a long open frontier, and did gain valuable experience as a commander.
Washington's plans to build a fortune revolved around land, as it did with most ambitious colonials. Good land east of the Appalachians was rapidly being taken up, but there were vast stretches of unoccupied land west of the mountains, that was within the power of the Crown to grant. Washington, like others, worked every angle he could to gain land grants, sometimes making claims for land he wasn't technically entitled to. Between the French and Indian War and the Revolution Washington acquired title to thousand of acres in western Pennsylvania, Virginia and the future Ohio and Kentucky.
The flaw in the land schemes of course was that the land was occupied by Indians who didn't recognize the right of the Kings of France or England, or the governors of the colonies to give their land to white people. Before and after the both the French War and the Revolution there numerous treaties in which Indians were manipulated into selling tracts of land. Many of these were fraudulent, taking advantage of the different Indian understanding of land and ownership and tribal politics. The flood of settlers over the mountains in search of land, whether they had rights to it or not, caused constant friction and acts of violence, committed as much by the settlers as by the Indians.
In an effort to prevent another Indian war, the British government established a line beyond which white settlers were not allowed, effectively canceling thousands of acres of land grants, including much of Washington's. Anger at this action was one of the causes of the Revolution. Ironically, when the United States became independent and Washington became the first president he was faced with the same problem and attempted the same solution, establishing lines beyond which the land belonged to the Indians. And the results were essentially the same. Settler pressure on Indian land made attempts at orderly settlement of the west futile.
Washington had learned much from his dealings with the Indians and had gained a considerable measure of respect from them. His vision was for the Indians to adapt to white methods of agriculture and participate in the white economy, giving up hunting and the need for large tracts of hunting land, which would make the "excess" land available for white settlement. In practice, some Indians were already making the transition on their own, with the Creeks in the South adopting large scale grazing and the Iroquois adapting to white farming. But the fly in the ointment was that the changes, as envisaged by Washington and other white proponents, flew in the face of Indian social structures and was not an easy transition. In the end it was only ever partially successful and, despite Washington's hopes that Indians would be incorporated into the United States their land was constantly under pressure and in the early 1800's pressure for removal of the Indians to west of the Mississippi would become to great.
As for Washington's hopes of building a fortune based on land, he died land rich but cash poor. His plan had been more or less based on the model of the English landed aristocracy, where he would sell some land but retain ownership of much of it, which would be rented out to provide his income. But large amounts of land were available and the most of the settlers wanted to own their own land rathe than rent. Even selling his land proved problematic, as Washington wanted top dollar in what was a buyers market.
This is an excellent volume for the student of the colonial and revolutionary United States. It gives a good narration of the complexities of colonial society and frontier relations between colonials, the British government, France, Spain and the many Indian nations, which themselves were involved in complex inter-tribal relations.

[Todd Price · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Washington’s efforts to reconcile the competing aspects of his Indian policies seem hypocritical, knowing what we know now, but he devoted more time, thought, and ink to the problem than did most of his contemporaries, and most other presidents. Some, perhaps many Native Americans revered his memory as they looked back from a time when US Indian policy veered from assimilation in the name of ‘civilization’ to ethnic cleansing under the name of removal.” So Dr. Calloway summarizes George Washington’s legacy of Native American policy in the closing pages of his treatise. It must be noted, Dr. Colin Calloway is surely the foremost academic historian on Native American history at this time, possibly ever to date. His research and breadth of knowledge are on full display. No one better understands and is capable of offering synopsis of historical reality in the history of Native Americans in the past of the United States.

Washington’s attitudes, prejudices, and surprisingly enlightened(for the era in which he lived) concern toward Native Americans is laid out in brutal detail. Washington is at times conflicted. He clearly held many of the prejudicial views toward other races of his time. However, Calloway rescues the reality of his beliefs from centuries of varying opinions on Washington. Until the mid 20th century, Washington was an unimpeachable hero and father of the United States. The cultural revolution of the 1960’s saw the shift to decrying him as a naked racist and “Indian hater”. Neither view is accurate, but neither are the two views completely wrong. There are elements of truth in both. The beauty of Calloway’s work is to reveal that Washington’s prejudice was cultural, not racial. Multiple times throughout the work, Calloway references Washington’s adherence to Scottish Enlightenment philosophy. Washington simply ascribed to the thought that Native Americans were simply “uncivilized”. Human to be sure, but still “savage” in their stage of development. Obviously, his views are much outdated, but the time and energy he dedicated to Native Americans is evidence that he had some level of respect for them.

This work, as Calloway outlines in his preface, is not necessarily a true biography in the traditional sense, but a biography of sorts, nonetheless. And one that is desperately needed to properly contextualize Washington’s actions and behavior toward Native Americans. One of the most remarkable takeaways I have was never explicitly stated, but made abundantly clear from the text. The concept of Manifest Destiny surely originated with George Washington. He presents a fatalistic outlook regarding the development of the United States and the role of Native Americans. They could either jump aboard the “American Train”, or be overrun by it. Calloway references Washington’s comments of “peace or destruction” as an ultimatum to Indian peoples throughout the narrative. Washington seemed to have a genuine desire to “save” Native Americans “from themselves”, but at the cost of abandoning millennia of cultural development. It’s a truly saddening story, but also one that truly establishes the realistic history of George Washington in dealing with the “Indian World” with which he interacted.

[Cindy Leighton · Rating 5 out of 5]

I mean I knew we took this land from the Ojibwe, the Seneca, the Cherokee, Wyandotte, Iroquois and all the other people who lived here before us - but reading 600 pages of incredibly well researched details about the ruthlessness with which our first President picked fights and destroyed nations so that he and others could make money off of land speculation. . . this was a rough read. Calloway's main conclusion after a lifetime of research and a professorship at Dartmouth College is that "Washington spent a lifetime turning Indian homelands into real estate for himself and his nation."

It is no wonder Washington was called "Conotocaurius"by the Iroquois, which meant Town Destroyer, or Devourer of Villages. According to Calloway, Washington's Indian "diplomacy" was "always about land," and by the time of his death, Washington owned over 58,000 acres of Indian land. In school we learn about Washington's early training as a surveyor, and about how he used what he learned fighting Indians to better fight the British. What we learn less about is why he was so interested in surveying - that it was the first step in land grabbing. After reading this book you see Washington primarily as a real estate developer - always trying to "buy" land on the cheap, pushing Indians off when he could, burning their villages and crops and starving them out when he couldn't easily them them off, all in pursuit of cheap land he could later resell at a profit.

Washington also made attempts to "civilize" and assimilate native populations. He believed that if he could get various tribes to adapt European traditions of raising domesticated animals instead of hunting, they would require less land - leaving more land for people like Washington to acquire. Surprisingly (to him, not to anthropologists) farming and herding animals - adapting the White Man's way of life, actually ended up in larger land needs and acquisitions. Some tribes even assimilated so well as to adapt to the White man's tradition of enslaving persons captured and imported from the African continent. The Cherokee were, of course, the most "successful" in this assimilation - and yet this assimilation would offer them no protection from future president Andrew Jackson and his Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears.

This is not an easy read - both because of the horrifying content and because it is dense with names of leaders, negotiations, battles and such. But it is an important read. Calloway even implies that much of Washington's motivation in fighting for indpendence from England in the first place was England's 1763 treatise stating that the US ended at the Appalachian mountains - reserving land west of the mountains for the natives who lived there. Washington wanted to expand beyond the mountains, and this declaration may have been the actual motivation for the fight for "freedom" - land grab.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

"In the course of almost fifty years, Washington grew from a young man out of his depth in the cultural practices, foreign policies, and geopolitical strategies of Indian country to the most powerful man on the continent, whose policies and precedents affected the lives and futures of thousands of Indian people... His insistence that the federal government exercise exclusive responsibility for Indian affairs asserted national authority over Indian tribes and over individual states and prepared the way for the role of 'big government' in western expansion and Indian affairs in the nineteenth century... Washington never questioned that Indians must and would relinquish their lands to the growing republic, but the power and presence of Indian nations and the foreign policies pursued by Indian leaders pressured his administration to turn from claiming Indian lands by right of conquest and instead base its Indian relations on law and restraint... Washington saw his policies as setting Indians on the road to survival, not destruction, giving them the opportunity to remake themselves as American citizens. Inclusion in American society, as understood by Washington and subsequent makers of Indian policy, required Indian people to cease being Indian; in effect, their survival, paradoxically, required their 'disappearance.'"

Washington, to me, has always been presented as an infallible, 'bulletproof' figure. He's often portrayed as a stoic, legendary leader who saved the American Revolution and "cannot tell a lie." In reality, he was like many men of his generation, he was hungry for the personal profit that westward expansion promised and he vastly overestimated his ability to deal with the Native people who lived on the land he coveted.

It was only through tremendous failure - with the British, the Native tribes and his own American citizens - that he came to be the leader we know him as today. His failures in making war and peace make him relatable, and therefore admirable. To me, what sets him apart from other Founding Fathers is his unwavering effort to prove the sovereignty of the United States be a mediator and unifier of his nation and the nations surrounding him.

Like Jefferson and others, he was not without his flaws and hypocrisies when it came to personal freedom and liberty. He owned slaves (though he freed them upon his death and privately criticized slavery) and he believed the best way forward for Native Americans was to become 'civilized' (read: white) but his role in our history was to provide a solid foundation to the revolutionary ideas that created the American political identity. His contemporaries saw him as Joshua, leading his people into Canaan, but I think he was more like Moses, who died before fully seeing his 'promised land.'