Customer Reviews

War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Empire

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I am going to offer a rave review, (admittedly of a favorite period), and want to disclaim the need for a disclaimer --- I do not know the author or have any connection to his University or publisher.

Gregory Dowd can hardly be accused of writing inaccessible history only to other historians on an obscure topic. The linkages in British Colonial Indian policy between the end of the French and Indian War and the Revolution are interesting in their own right. This account covers all perspectives, dealing with French attitudes; Pontiac's turbulent, adroit yet ultimately unpopular leadership; and above all the cultural and emotional influences at work in the era. Not merely about Pontiac's War, this work is aptly subtitled: Pontiac, The Indian Nations and the British Empire.

Of particular import is Dowd's sophisticated analysis of British policy paralleled with a sober yet, when appropriate, complimentary account of the methods of the Indian Nations. Dowd provides new insight in his focus on the issue of status and dignity as a motivating factor in Pontiac's War -- without ever collapsing into easy platitudes on the plight of Native Americans. Wholistic in the best sense of the word, the impact of Indian religion and its interaction with Christianity is also assessed.

Expert, well written, well researched, non-polemic; War Under Heaven, also offers seamless assessments of the work of other historians.

The fact that Dowd accomplishes so much in just 275 pages of text is a testament to good writing and the tightness of the text. Just as accessible to newcomer as to student of the era.

Gregory Dowd's "War Under Heaven" is a decent scholarly analysis of the Indian conflict popularly known as Pontiac's War, that bloody uprising against the British along the Eastern frontier in the years immediately after the end of the French and Indian War. Pontiac's War was a result of many factors following France's defeat in the contest for North America, most of which surrounded the uncertainy of the Indians future in an empire now controlled by the British, who unlike the French before them, did not generally look upon the Indians with favor. The result of this uncertainy of status and spirituality led to an especially sanguinary confrontation between the Indians and their British neighbors, or as the Indians saw them, overlords.

Dowd questions the traditionally accepted causes of the war, especially the conclusions of authors like Francis Parkman and Howard Peckham, which placed the ultimate causes of the war at the feet of General Jeffery Amherst and his anti-Indian policies of witholding presents and weapons from the tribes, materials that they had not only come to expect as a matter of course, but were now wholely dependent on for their survival. Dowd attempts to draw a connection to the role of the Delaware Prophet Neolin and his influence on Pontiac and the other western tribes as they struggled to maintain their lifestyle in the face of a an uncertain future. The author maintains that the question of Indian status and prestige lie at the root of the conflict as the Indians tried to keep the balance between themselves and the British which they had always enjoyed with their previous allies, the French. He also attempts to enhance the role played by the spiritual aspect of the war, showing that Pontiac and his followers were greatly influenced by the teachings of the Delaware Prophet and his message of a return to native technologies and lifeways and a rejection of white influence. This is definately not a military history of the war so much as an analaysis of the causes and outcomes of Pontiac's War and the way Indian-white relations evolved over the course of the years 1760-1765.

While the book is well written and researched, I had some serious reservations with some of the conclusions Dowd draws. For one thing, Dowd seriously downplays the significance of Henry Bouquet's success at the Battle of Bushy Run, claiming it was more a draw than the important victory most historians make it out to be. He also downplays the importance of Bouquets expedition into the Ohio Country in 1764, a march that is usually credited with having ended the war and eliciting proclamations of peace from the Ohio tribes. Here Dowd implies that far from cowing the tribes, Bouquet forms a shaky peace with the yet hostile native enemies whom he knows he can not best in open combat.

The biggest problem, however, lies with his almost revisionist treatment of Colonel John Bradstreet's expedition to Detroit which took place simultaneously with Bouquet's march. Historians from Francis Parkmen to Fred Anderson have characterized Bradstreet's expedition as an unqualified disaster. Bradstreet disobeyed his orders from Gage to attack the Shawnee and Delaware villages along the Scioto and attempted to create his own ill-conceived peace accord with the Ohio tribes in a clear affront to his nemesis William Johnson. Bradstreet is generally remembered by history as being the conqueror of Fort Frontenac during the late war with France, but here he proves himself to be an ambitious yet incompetent bungler who's greatest affront comes at Detroit when, enraged at Pontiac's absence from a peace council Bradstreet has called with the disaffected tribes, the colonel proceeds to tomahawk to bits a peace belt Pontiac has sent in his stead, an act that one historian has compared to a diplomat spitting on a proposed peace treaty. Bradstreet also unwisely sends poor Captain Thomas Morris on a fool's errand up the Maumee and Washbash Rivers, into the lion's den so to speak, in an attempt to bring Pontiac to the peace table. Along the way Morris is beaten and nearly burned at the stake by hostile Indians, only to escape to Detroit in failure, angering a deluded Bradstreet by presenting undeniable evidence that the peace he believes he has forged is a total fraud. Bradstreet then leaves Detroit in disgust, is angered further by the Indians failure to show up with prisoners at Sandusky as promised, and then proceeds to abandon half his force on his return to Niagara after many of his bateauxs are foolishly sunk in a storm on Lake Erie when he fails to take the necessary precautions to protect his men and equipment. Dowd, however, portrays Bradstreet as an unsung hero, a man maligned by his superiors who are angered by his mission's lack of bloodshed and chastisement. Whether or not this is an accurate view of Bradstreet is questionable, but Dowd seems to support much of the rest of his arguements soundly.

The book was well written and I found Dowd's argument convincing. His narration is clear, though there are times when it could have been shortened.

The complaint... Dowd does a decent job explaining the British Navy as an advantage at Fort Detroit. It is possible, and probable that many of the people on the ships were not trained sailors that the royal navy is accustomed to. However, the British certainly knew how to handle their ships. In fact, I would suggest that Pontiac had little to no chance at Fort Detroit. Now, here is the complaint. Where Dowd does a good job showing how the greatest navy in the world would be too much for Pontiac to handle; he fails to point out the reality of England's army. The English had probably the worst land army in Europe at the time. During the 7 years war it was Prussia who kept England ahead in Europe. English armies were battered by France in America. The English enforced discipline, but their army was not elite. For obvious reasons, the royal navy was of more importance. Why is this a complaint? Well, Dowd appears to give Pontiac's warriors a good deal of credit, and rightfully so, but Indian warriors armed with European weapons placed them theoretically on the same "playing field" as the English. The English army was horrible, and Dowd should have pointed this out. The army was not as well trained as the French or Prussians. This is seen as certain captains, commanders, etc. are seen creating their own rules. What I am suggesting is, the weakness of the British army contributed more to Pontiac's success than it is shown.


Complaint aside, the book is definitely worth buying. If you are a history student (European or US) I would suggest it--particularly if you plan to focus on colonial history.


Another good book from this period is "Subjects unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the contest for authority in colonial New England" by Jenny Hale Pulsipher

Uncolored by prevailing thought, Dowd's impression of Col. Bradstreet is more objective than most.
For instance, most historians have unfortunately taken Sir Wm. Johnson's "Remarks on the Conduct of Col. John Bradsteet" letter to Gen. Gage as sound criticism, which it is not. The enraged Johnson permitted his personal dislike and his resentment for Bradstreet (his usurping of his powers to make treaties)to overwhelm him. It caused him to make rash assumptions and exaggerations. As an example, careful examination of "Bradstreet's Disaster", utilizing only Capt. Montresor's joural and Mantee's "Late War in America", reveals that virtually every accusation of Johnson's regarding that event is false or exaggerated. It has colored historians' opinions of Bradstreet in a major way ever since.

Gregory Dowd is to be congratulated for his seeing beyond the historically tainted impressions.

this fast read is good for understanding the "benign neglect" policy of the British government during the pre-AmerRev period.Traditional interpretatins of the
Proclamation of 1763(which restricted white european settlement west of the Appalachians) blame poor land hungry European settlers for the violation of the treaty and make the British government appear as mediators. Dowd asks the "big question",that is,with all that land and resources and human greed,would the British actually believe the Proclamation Line would mean anything to anyone except the Indian nations in the disputed territories?The answer is no, the Proclamation Line of 1763 was intended as a stalling tactic until the British government could figure out a way to gobble the land west of the Appalachians,legally or at least with little actual cost.White squatters forced the Indians out however before the British government could get their,"greasy paws" on it. Pontiacs'War as i interpret Dowd, is a sideshow, though interesting and tragic to the coming of the American Revolution.After reading the book I was reminded of a warning that an American Indian gave to fellow Americans at a convention,he said,"You Americans better keep a close watch on your immigration policy,cause us Indians sure didn't"!!!!!