Existing comment:
Leadership
Contrasting political symbols gave Native Peoples and colonists different assumptions about who had authority to negotiate a treaty.
Viewpoint: Native Nations:
Native Nations were all self-governing. But systems varied in forms and in the way leaders rose to power. Some systems had hereditary titles and roles. Others were merit-based or led by councils. There were many kinds of leaders with overlapping powers.
Most Indian Nations were federations of self-governing villages or bands. This decentralized, non-coercive system gave individuals more independence than the average European enjoyed.
At first, the need to present a united face to colonial leaders enhanced the authority of sachems and chiefs. Later, non-Indians undermined those powers.
Viewpoint: European Nations:
Europeans had hierarchical societies in which superiors compelled subordinates to obey. Even democratic governments gave elected officials authority to make decisions for all.
When colonists encountered tribal governments, they were frustrated that no one person could speak for all citizens of a given nation. Colonial leaders wrote disapprovingly about Indians' lack of subordination. Other political thinkers were inspired.
The centralized organization of the colonies gave them the appearance of unity in negotiations with Indian Nations. In fact, they could not prevent their own citizens from trespassing on Indian lands. |