Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

No description available.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

As Colin Calloway has noted, American Indians have been accorded a “minimal and negative role” in historical memories of the American Revolution because – according to popular mythology – they “chose the wrong side and lost.”1 Such memories are, I argue, at least partially the result of the failure of United States Indian policies and diplomacy during the war. An examination of the Journals of the Continental Congress reveals that these policies were predicated upon the racialized notion that Indians were ‘savages’ that should be ‘civilized’ and assimilated into American society. Such policies were, I argue, the product of processes of national identity formation. In the early years of the war, American leaders eager to form a new national identity separate from that of their British ‘oppressors’ began to identify themselves with Indians as natives of the same land and thus sought to bring them into the fold of the new nation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Indians’ attempts to preserve their own culture and independence in the face of these policies were met largely with resentment by American leaders. By doing so Indians had, American leaders believed, rejected ‘civilization.’ They were thus ‘unworthy’ of inclusion in the American nation. The removal policies that arose in the wake of the Revolution were, I argue, partially an outgrowth of this belief. By removing Indians westward, American leaders could push them out of both sight and mind while conveniently forgetting their own diplomatic failures during the war. In the process, they positioned Indians in popular American memories of the Revolutionary War as ‘savages’ that ‘chose the wrong side and lost.’ / Introduction : the wrong side : a historiography of Indians' involvement in the American Revolution -- We may become one people : the evolution of Congressional Indian policies -- The same island is our common mother : diplomacy on the Revolutionary frontier -- Civilization or death to all savages : Congress's war on the frontier -- By the aid of the full blooded natives : Indians' war for independence -- Epilogue : a civilized people : a digital analysis of the Indian Removal Act's Revolutionary inheritances. / Department of History

In mid-November, 1775, Lord Dunmore last Royal Governor of Virginia attempted to enlist the support of rebel owned slaves to crush Patriot resistance to Great Britain. This study examines the slaveholders' response to Dunmore's actions. Virginia's slaveholders fought a counter-revolution in order to maintain traditional race relations in the colony. Patriot propaganda portrayed Dunmore as a race traitor, who became symbolically more "black" than white. Slaveholders characterized Dunmore as a rebel, a madman, and a sexual deviant - stereotypes normally given to slaves by their "masters." Since Dunmore threatened to destroy the defining institution of slavery, planters sought to salvage their identities by defending the paternalistic philosophy and racist assumptions upon which slave society was based. Planters overwhelmingly became Patriots to protect slavery. / Department of History

No description available.

This dissertation is a systematic investigation of fugitive slave advertisements aiming to understand the nature of fugitives’ rebelliousness in Georgia and Maryland between 1790 and 1810. Hitherto, historical inquiry pertaining to slave fugitivity has focused on other states and other times. This study provides a close reading of 5,567 advertisements pertaining to runaway slaves and analyses extracted data pertaining to the prosopography of 1,832 fugitives and their fugitivity. Its main research questions focus on advertisements as manifest records of rebellion. Who were the fugitives? What do the fugitive slave advertisements reveal about enslaved people’s contestation of slaveholders’ authority? The principal findings are as follows. First, the typography and iconography of fugitive slave advertisements were expressly intended to undermine the individualism and agency of enslaved people. Second, with regard to Georgia and Maryland, while there were spikes between 1796 and 1798 and 1800 and 1801, fugitivity was a daily occurrence, and thus a normative act of rebellion distinct from insurrection. Third, quantitative analysis indicated fugitives were typically young males, in their twenties, likely to escape at any time of the year; Georgia fugitives were more likely to escape in groups. Fourth, qualitative analysis of advertisers’ descriptions of fugitives revealed evidence of challenges to their authority. Depictions of fugitives’ character and remarks or notes on their behaviour constitute evidence of observed characteristics. From the advertisers’ perspective slaves were at their most dangerous when they could read and write or when they were skilled in deception. The “artful” fugitive in particular possessed many skills, sometimes including literacy, which could be used to defy the power that kept him or her in subjection. Fifth, further investigation established clear linkages between literacy and fugitives’ rebelliousness. Qualitative studies to date speak of slave literacy’s theoretical liberating and empowering effects but do not provide tangible accounts of who the literate slaves were or consider literacy as a factor in rebelliousness. The dissertation identified 36 literate slaves in Maryland and 9 in Georgia, and statistical analysis suggested 3.6 percent of US fugitive slaves were literate. Finally, it was evident that literacy was part of a larger contest to circumvent slaveholder authority and attain self-empowerment. Fugitivity itself was the outcome of a history of contestation that might be hidden from history were it not for the advertisements themselves.

Nathanael Greene spent the first five years of the American Revolution serving as a line and field officer in the Continental Army and developed a nuanced revolutionary strategy based on preserving the Continental Army and a belief that all forces should be long-service national troops. He carried these views with him to his command in the southern theater but developed a partisan approach due to problems he faced in the region. Greene effectively kept his army supplied to such an extent that it remained in the field to oppose the British with very little outside assistance. He reluctantly utilized a partisan strategy while simultaneously arguing for the creation of a permanent Continental force for the region.

No description available.

No description available.