Welcome History Spirituality Sachem Photo Gallery's Calendar of Events One People Again Dutch
   
      Glory, Death, And Transfiguration: 
The Susquehannock Indians In The Seventeenth Century
       

 

   

Results of The Albany Treaty

 
   
   

Chief Piercing Eyes
Introduction
Prehistory
Neighboring Peoples
Lenape Tributaries
Map 1
Susquehannock Ascendancy
Map 2
Map 3
Dutch Power
English-Dutch-Conflict
Iroquois Defeads
English Conquest
Temporary Peace
The Whorekill Raids
Maryland's New Indian Policy
Susquehannock Removal Into Maryland
Attack On The Susquehannock Fort
Andros' Indian Policies
Andros' Protection
Andros' Ultimatums
Explanation Of The Intrigues
The Treaty Of Shackamaxon
The Treaty Of Albany
Results of The Albany Treaty
Forging Of The Covenant Chain
Susquehannock Revenge
Beginnings Of Pennsylvania
Significance Of Penn's Indians Deeds
Map 4
Jacob Young's Predicament
Origin Of The Iroquois Conquest Myth
Re: Emergence Of Susquehannock Polity
Appendix: Lenape Ownership Of Delaware
   
   
optimized for Opera and Microsoft Internet Explorer 8
 

In spite of all restrictions and frustrations, Coursey left Albany with an illusion of ultimate triumph. He had finally made contact with the elusive Iroquois and had provided for meeting them again on better terms. He did get what he thought was a full and final peace embracing Virginia and his Indian allies as well as Maryland. The danger of a LenapeSusquehannock confederacy had been circumvented, it seemed. At Albany, Coursey succeeded, as he thought, in two particular accomplishments: the Lenape became obligated by the terms of the peace even though they had not spoken formally at the conference; and the Susquehannock's lost diplomatic recognition as a nation capable of speaking for themselves.110

Coursey had yet one more reason for satisfactionperhaps the best one. Lord Baltimore had been in London answering official questions ever since the outbreak of all the violence in 1675. The same Protestant politicians who wanted to bring down James Stuart also menaced Baltimore's government of his province. Complaints about Baltimore's bias against Protestants in Maryland were supplemented by his evident inability to protect his back settlers from Indians. To stall hostile action Baltimore lied boldly to the Privy Council's Committee of Trade and Plantations. He told the Lords in 1677 that the "Peace with the Northern Indians bordering upon his Province has held for twenty years and is yearly confirmed by the Indians." Embarrassingly, he was asked for evidence. Coursey's treaty at Albany at last gave Baltimore something in writing to offer the Lords. The treaty did not confirm his words, but it did at least seem to show signs of effort and accomplishment in relations with the Indians.111   Perhaps Coursey's treaty weighed in the final decision to let Baltimore keep his government. If so, the treaty served in this regard only to postpone, not to eliminate, Baltimore's loss of his government. What the Lords failed to take in 1677, Maryland's people would seize in 1689. They, too, were dissatisfied with the effects of Baltimore's Indian policies.

Coursey's companion and interpreter, Jacob Young, found no comfort at all in the treaty. Young had been more than a trader among the Susquehannock's. An Onondaga spokesman disclosed that Jacob Young had been "a great Leader and Captain" in the prolonged SusquehannockIroquois wars. Maliciously the Onondagan added that Young had been "a great occasion" of the Iroquois attacks on both Christians and Indians. (It may be noted that, though Coursey's Instructions had been to curry favor with the Iroquois by blaming the Susquehannock's for backwoods killings, the Iroquois matteroffactly admitted their culpability.)112   Young could see the implications for himself of Maryland's acquiescence in the Susquehannock's' disappearance into Iroquoia. Young's business was at the Chesapeake; the business would depart with its patrons. Perhaps Young also had become Indian enough to feel humiliated by the legal extinction of the nation he had led and befriended. He mourned to Coursey, "If he had known before coming that the Susquehannock's were not to be included in the peace, he would rather have given 20,000 pounds of tobacco than to come." Coursey remembered the remark and turned it against Young on a later occasion.113

We have called Coursey's triumph an illusion. Now it remains to be seen who actually won the peace. The curious fact is that all the other participantseven the silent Susquehannock's and Lenapegained more than Maryland. Andros preserved New York's monopoly on negotiations with the Indians of his government. As he had gained some of New England's Indians with his "tree of peace" at Scaticook, now he gained the manpower and furtrading expertise of the Susquehannock's. The Iroquois gained the warriors they so badly needed. The Susquehannock's everywhere gained sanctuary from Maryland. Both the Lenape and the Susquehannock's at Delaware Bay were relieved of the menace of attack from Maryland, and with the signing of the treaty Andros relaxed his efforts to make the remaining Susquehannock's at the Bay remove elsewhere.114

The Treaty Of Albany

Forging Of The Covenant Chain

   
  Notes:
110

Proclamation of treaty terms, 5 Oct., 1677, Md. Arch. (Council) 15: p. 157.

   
111

Minutes of Committee for Trade and Plantations, 10 April, 1676; 18 Dec., 1677; 26 March, 1678; 15 April, 1678, Md. Arch. (PRO) 5: pp. 125—130, 263, 264, 258, 269.

   
112

Treaty minutes, 21 July, 1677, Md. Arch. (PRO) 5: p. 255.

   
113

Trial findings, 19 Oct., 1683, Md. Arch. (Upper House) 7: p. 475.

   
114

A piece of evidence, seeming to support the Iroquois conquest myth, must be accounted for. The Onondagas mentioned at Albany that warriors of their "four Castelles of ye Senikars" were "out a fighting aganst the Susquahannas." Livingston Indian Records, p. 44. In the confused terminology of the time, "Senikars" might mean only the Senecas proper or it might mean all the nonMohawk Iroquois, and the fact that the remark was made by an Onondagan makes the more comprehensive interpretation more probably correct. (See n. 103.) The remark may be explained by reference to the disunited state of the Susquehannocks. As we have seen, some of them elected to join the Iroquois while others joined the Lenape. Apparently a few still stubbornly refused to incorporate with any larger nation. It was these holdouts that the Iroquois forced into submission, with Andros' apparent consent. See Donald A. Cadzow, Archaeological Studies of the Susquehannock Indians of Pennsylvania, Safe Harbor Report No. 2, Pennsylvania Hist. Corn. PubI. 3 (Harrisburg, 1936) : p. 37.

 

 

Updates Links Disclaimer Contact
 

©2010 Webmaster | Design: Shining BlueJay