DTIC ADA491333: Cultures in Conflict: An Assessment of Frontier Diplomacy during the French and Indian War

2.5 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

UnitedStates Marine Corps
CommandandStaffCollege
Marine Corps University
2076South Street
Marine Corps CombatDevelopm,ent Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5068
MASTER OFMILITARY STUDIES
TITLE:
Cultures in Conflict:
An AssessmentofFrontierDiplomacy during the French andIndian War
SUBMITTED INPARTIALFULFILLMENT
OFTHEREQUIREMENTS FORTHEDEGREE OF
MASTEROFMILITARY STUDIES
AUTHOR
MajorKevinL. Moody, USMC
AY 07-08
;Z~;;1fr;,~b;:;;e~r~:D....o~~or ofHistory
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2008 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
An Assessment of Frontier Diplomacy DUring the French and Indian
5b. GRANT NUMBER
War
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College,Marine Corps REPORT NUMBER
University,2076 South Street, Marine Corps Control Development
Command,Quantico,VA,22134-5068
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 43
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Disclaimer
The opinions and conclusions expressedinthis paper are those ofthe author and do not
necessarilyrepresent the views oftheMarine Corps, the Marine Corps Command and Staff
College, or anyother govenunent agency. References to this studyshouldinclude thepreceding
statement.
Quotations from, abstractions from, orreproduction ofall or anypart ofthis document is
pennittedprovidedproper aclmowledgementis made.
11
ExecutiveSummary
Title: Cultures in Conflict: An Assessment ofFrontierDiplomacyduring the French and Indian
War
Author: MajorKevin L. Moody, United States Marine Corps
Thesis: Cultural clashes and differing strategic objectives amongAmerindians and the European
powers ledto parallel warfare during the French and Indian War.
Discussion: Duringthe fOUlih and final struggle for colonial dominanceinNOlih America, the
French, English, and Iroquois Confederacyweaved adelicate balance ofdiplomacy and
combinedwarfare to advance theirinterests. NativeAmericans experienced dramatic social and
cultural changes as aresult oftwo and ahalfcenturies ofexchange and interactionwith
Europeans. Disease, advanced weapons, andtrade dependency contributed to increasing levels
ofinter-nativeviolence. Amerindian objectives inwarfare included captive taking to replenish
tribal losses, plunderto advance trade, prestige for tribal advancement, revenge, and territorial
expanSIOn.
Dueto theirsmall colonialpopulation, New Francerequired close diplomatic ties with their
Amerindianneighbors. Colonists relied onnatives for protection, food, and trade.
Consequently, the French andtheirAmerindianneighbors crafted amutual system ofcultural
interactionthatfacilitated trade, diplomacy, andpeaceful coexistence. Additionally, sincemost
French colonists were singlemales, manytooknativewives, thus marriageties further
strengthened alliances with various tribes.
English colonies advanced verydifferentlythan theirEuropeanneighbors to the north. A
burgeoningpopulation and longer growing season ensuredthat the Englishcolonies didnot
retain dependencyonnatives for survival. Additionally, the English colonies were expansionist.
They experiencedincreasing demands for native lands for their children, new immigrants, and
speculativeprofits. Consequently, English diplomacyvis-a.-vis native tribes was not nearly as
accommodatingas French diplomacy.
The Iroquois, French, and English competition overthe Ohio River Valley culminatedin the
French and IndianWar. While everyoneinvolved patiicipated in combinedwarfare and
campaigns, theirtactical and strategic objectives werenot always the same. Additionally, the
clashofcultures, even amongst allies, oftencreated Ullintended consequences and significant
informationoperations failures. Boththe English and the French experienced the adverse effects
causedbythe inabilityto command and control one's allies.
Conclusion: NeithertheFrenchnorthe English enjoyed effective command and control oftheir
Amerindian allies duringthe quest for empireinNOlih America. Bothutilized diplomacyto
build alliances, influence tribes, andestablishprofitabletrade withnativepeoples; however, once
atwar, the Europeanpowers failed to fully discernthe dichotomybetweentheir own security
interests and strategic objectives and those oftheirnative allies. Consequently, the actions ofone
coalitionpatinerinthefUliherance ofits ownstrategic objectives and values could create
negative consequences for the strategic objectives ofall other coalitionpatiners.
111
Table ofContents
Page
DISCLAIMER ii
EXECUTWE SUMMARY iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
PREFACE vi
ILLUSTRATIONS vii
INTRODUCTION 1
AMERINDIANWARAND CULTURE 2
Disease 2
Trade and Dependency 3
War and Culture : 4
TRIBAL GROUPS 7
Iroquois Confederacy 7
Westenl 9
FRENCH 10
SmallPopulation 10
Pays d'enHaut 11
FrenchDiplolnacy 12
ENGLISH COLONISTS 14
LargePopulation 14
Expansionist " 15
EnglishDiplolnacy 16
PARALLELWARFARE 17
Jumonville's Glen 18
FOIiWillialnHenry 20
CONCLUSION 22
APPENDIXA: CHRONOLOGy 25
APPENDIXB: MAPS 26
IV
ENDNOTES 29
BIBLIOGRAPHy 32
v
Preface
Ifirstbecameinterested inAmericanIndians as a child. Theways inwhich the various
tribes interactedwithEnglish colonists and subsequentlyAmerican expansionists have fascinated
me for years. Irecall reading andrereading abiography ofGeronimo while I attendedMiddle
School. A few years later, I discoveredDeeBrown's BuryMy Heart at WoundedKnee, and I
havebeen astudent ofAmerindians eversince.
This studyis relevant for those intheprofession ofan11S andfor today's statesmen. As our
nation continues toprosecute counterinsurgencies inAfghanistan and Iraq, the lessons ofnearly
three centuries ofconflictwithNative Americans continue to resonate. Themes suchas coalition
warfare, cultural differences, war amongstthepeople, andparallelwarfare withdifferent
strategic objectives arejust as relevanttoday as theywereinthe 17th and 18th centuries. The
French and IndianWarprovidesthebackdrop for this paper; however, only a few historic
examples are utilizedto illustratekeypoints. As such, thepaper does not address the entirewar.
As astudent at COlmnand and StaffCollege, Ihavebeen afforded the opportunityto focus
myinterests regarding Amerindians and earlyAmericanhistoryduring several classes. I am
thankful for the guidance and assistance ofDr. DonaldBittnerand Dr. Jolm Gordon, two
professors at the USMC Command and StaffCollege.
VI
JUMONVILLE'S GLEN
On 28 May 1754, Major GeorgeWashington's Indian allies slaughtered approximately 10French
prisoners ofwar. How did acoalitionpartnerfighting aparallelwar, butwithdifferent strategic
objectives, help precipitatea strugglefor empirein North Americaanda globalwar?
FORT WILLIAMHENRY (:
How did the 10August 1757 "Massacre at FortWilliamHenry" reflect
diplomatic andcross-culturalissues in North America?
vii
~,
i
viii
INTRODUCTION
TheFrench and Indian War of1754-1763 was the fourth and final struggle for colonial
dominanceinNorth America. Thelong struggle for empire inNorth America betweenFrance
1
andEnglandbeganwithKing William's War (1689-97), followed byQueenAnne's War (1702
1713), King George's War (1744-1748), andfinallythe French and Indian WaLl During each
conflict, boththe French andEnglish enlistedAmerindian aid; however, the strategic objectives
within each alliance were usuallyquite different. While the Europeanpowers warred over
economics, trade, and telTitory, NativeAmericans agreed to enter each conflict"based onwhat
theyconsideredtheirbestinterests inprotectingtheirterritories, maintainingtrade, or settling old
intertribal scores."z Cultural impacts on coalitionwarfare and differing strategic objectives
amongAmerindians andthe Europeanpowers are the focus ofthis paper. Although the French
and IndianWar often found Europeans andNative Americans fighting alongsideone another,
expectationsregarding strategic objectives, tactical objectives, and even concepts ofoperations
for campaigns varied greatly. While theEuropeanpowers, especiallythe French, recognizedthat
different expectations and goals existedwithin coalitions involvingAmerindians, theydidnot
fullyperceivethe strategic implications that couldresult from theuncontrolled actions ofnative
partners.
1