Scottish Indian trade
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| History of Scotland |
|---|
| Chronological Eras |
| Prehistoric Scotland |
| Scotland in the Early Middle Ages |
| Scotland in the High Middle Ages |
| Wars of Scottish Independence |
| Scotland in the Late Middle Ages |
| Scotland in the Early Modern Era |
| Scottish Enlightenment |
| Scotland in the Modern Era |
| Dynasties and Regimes |
| House of Alpin (843–878) & (889–1040) |
| House of Moray (1040–1058) |
| House of Dunkeld (1058–1286) |
| House of Balliol (1292–1296) |
| House of Bruce (1306–1371) |
| House of Stuart (1371–1707) |
| Act of Union (1707) |
| Topical |
| Art history |
| Colonial history |
| Culture |
| Economic history |
| Historiography |
| Literary history |
| Military history |
| Politics |
| Timeline of Scottish history |
| Scottish portal |
The transatlantic trade in deerskins was a significant commercial activity in Colonial America was greatly influenced, and at least partially dominated by Scottish traders and their firms. This trade, primarily in deerskins but also in beaver & other animal pelts was carried on with Native American tribes and is usually referred to as the Indian trade. The Indian trade was conducted largely to fill the high European and later colonial demand for deerskins and other animal pelts trapped by Indians in return for European trade goods. These pelts were then shipped to Europe and used in the leather making industry. This trade had been developing since the seventeenth century and Scottish traders played an important part its advance.
One reason why the Scots were able to make inroads into the Indian trade was due to similarities in culture and dress between the Indians and Scots. This is evidenced by the recollection, quoted by Cashin, that “the Indians were greatly attached to the Highlanders … because of their wild manners, of their manly sports, of their eastern costume, so much resembling their own” . This together with similarly structured societies, based in both cases upon clan or tribal ties and bonds of kinship, is thought to have led to a greater trust and willingness to trade and socialize with the Scots ahead of other traders with little in common to themselves.
The willingness of Scots traders to accept and take advantage of Indian customs was also important and is typified by their willingness to live in Indian villages and take Indian wives. This is in contrast to their main competitors, French traders, who generally didn’t marry among their customers. This cut the French off from one of the main advantages of Scottish traders, that of acceptance into an Indian clan, a network of kin and customers within that clan and superior information from their wives as to the state of affairs, needs and political developments of their Indian clans. These were profound advantages for those involved in the Indian trade as they ensured a connection to the kinfolk of his wife in the various villages he might be trading with, thus providing protection against ill treatment and a guaranteed customer base. This is connected to another advantage of the Scots traders, the fact that they generally refrained from preaching Christianity to their customers and interfering with their natural way of life as the Spanish did through their network of missions throughout their Indian territory . This gave the Scots an advantage over the Spanish and to a lesser extent the French. As Martin states “Scottish resident traders, most of them with Native American wives and offspring, connected themselves to the existing culture instead of proscribing or attacking it”. This policy worked so well that by the American Revolution a large number of Native American chiefs were of Scottish decent, including Alexander McGillivray, the leader of the Creeks.
Another advantage to the Scots in the development of the Indian trade was their clannishness or partiality to dealing with fellow Scots or those with a clan connection to themselves. This guaranteed the traders a pool of labour who as kin could be trusted to carry trade goods to the Indians and to not to defraud their employers or endanger the trade with Indian villages. Also once trading licenses were issued it ensured that, due to the practice of Scots selling on their licences, there was always a large Scottish presence in the Indian trade. As the first Southern Superintendent of Indian Affairs Edmond Atkin exclaimed “Licenses on the present footing may as well be given to men living in Cheapside” . This partiality of the Scots for dealing with their own kind also permeated the tobacco trade for much the same reasons, the need to trust your employees and business associates and a lingering sentimental trace of old clan structures.
The access of the Scots since the Act of Union 1707 to the manufacturing and financial centres of the Kingdom of Great Britain was also of great importance to their development and dominance of the Indian trade. In particular the ability of Scots traders to make use of the credit facilities available to them through London and the informal extended network of other Scots merchants and their financial resources. The extension of credit to those importing trade goods and to the purchasing Indians in advance of the delivery of pelts which would then have to be transported across the Atlantic before they could be sold was of paramount importance. This held true even after 1783 when the Scots firm of Panton, Leslie and Company were able to control the Florida Indian trade by offering credit which American traders were unable to equal. Also the ability of Great Britain to produce and deliver high quality goods desired by the Indians far surpassed that of the French or Spanish. So much so that at one time the commander of the French Fort Toulouse was forced to collect British trade goods as examples of what their customers wanted. The ability of traders to sustain the delivery of trade goods even in time of war also influenced their customers, especially with the common problems faced by the French and Spanish in supplying the Indians. As the French Governor of Louisiana stated, the Indians “every day tell our traders that if they were in a position to supply them with the things that they need, they would never permit the English to come upon their land” . In essence British, or Scottish, traders offered better credit terms, a reliable source of supply and a wider variety and better quality of goods than any of their competitors.
Perhaps the most important factor in the development of the Indian trade was the reliance of the colonial authorities on, often Scottish, traders as messengers, translators, sources of information and informal agents of the Empire. One favourable by-product of this was that traders were used to carry presents, or bribes, to the Indians, this tended to increase the popularity of these traders among the Indians especially as the French required them to journey to Fort Toulouse or other French outposts to receive presents. It also saved those traders from giving out too many of their own goods for free as they could often sate the Indians hunger for presents with official gifts. This secondary occupation of the traders also allowed them to function as a valuable conduit between the Indians and the heads of the colonies, this enabled them to transmit Government policy, reassurances and proposals to the Indians thus gaining their trust and custom. One of the most well documented traders who also functioned as an ambassador to the Indians was Lachlan McGillivray, who as well as acting as interpreter for several Indian conferences was instrumental in opening the Choctaw tribe to British traders and in laying the groundwork for the Choctaw revolt against the French.
The development by Scots traders of a new and different way of carrying out the Indian trade was also a major factor in its development. This involved the formation of trading companies with minor traders working on behalf of the company instead of the practice of sole traders working on their own. As “ for the more effectual carrying on the trade and supplying the Indians, we thought it proper to join in one company”, this was inorder to cut back on competition which would drive down profits, to reduce risk for each trader and also to combine the various, often complementary, skills and experience of the individual traders. It also allowed them to keep several traders stationed at any one time in the Indian country to smooth out any difficulties which might emerge with the Indians . The best and most successful example of this is the company of the “Gentlemen of Augusta” or Brown, Rae and Company, which by 1755 had gained three quarters of the Creek and Chickasaw trade. Another innovation of the Scots traders usually associated with the various members of the Gentlemen of Augusta, which became generally accepted after the Yamassee War was to avoid, for the most part, obvious and institutionalised exploitation of the Indians. This is shown by the company’s establishment of set prices, the abandonment of Rum as a trading tool, the designation of certain Indian villages as exclusive bases for the trade and other beneficial practices. These practices were soon adopted by other traders and trading companies throughout the Georgia and Carolina Indian country. This cut down on the worst abuses of the Indian trade and consequently removed much friction between Indians, traders and colonial authorities, at least until the trade was reorganised in the wake of the Seven Years' War. These innovations of the largely Scottish Augusta company allowed it’s members, together with other Scottish traders such as Macartan and Campbell; Crooke, MacIntosh and Jackson and others, to effectively monopolise the Southern Indian trade until the 1760’s .
A further factor involved in the Scottish grip on the Indian trade was the strong trend for political appointees such as Colonial administrators and Governors to hail from Scotland. This can be seen in the appointment of such men as William Johnson and John Stuart as Indian Superintendents and of James Grant, George Johnstone and James Glen as Governors . This preponderance of Scots in positions of authority in the successive colonial administrations can be seen as an important resource providing various Scots traders with, in differing degrees, connections, government contracts, a conduit to those making policy, aid in gaining trading licences and other potentially valuable assistance in their trade.
[edit] References
- Braund, K.E.H., Deerskins & Duffels; Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815, (Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1996).
- Brock, W.R., Scotus Americanus, (Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 1982).
- Cashin, E.J., Lachlan McGillivray, Indian Trader, (Athens : University of Georgia Press, 1992).
- Coker, W.S., & Watson, T.D., Indian Traders of the Southeastern Spanish Borderlands, Panton, Leslie & Company and John Forbes & Company 1783-1847, (Pensacola : University Presses of Florida, 1986).
- Fabel, R.F.A., The Economy of British West Florida, 1763-1783, (Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press, 1988).
- Martin, J.W., ‘Southeastern Indians and the English Trade in Skins and Slaves’, in C. Hudson and C.C. Tesser (eds) The Forgotten Centuries Indians and Europeans in the American South 1521-1704, (Athens : University of Georgia Press, 1994).
- Norton, T.E., The Fur Trade in Colonial New York 1686-1776, (Charlotte : University of Wisconsin Press, 1974).
- Snapp, J.R., John Stuart and the Struggle for Empire on the Southern Frontier, (Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press, 1996).
- Soltow, J.H., Scottish Traders in Virginia, 1750-1775, The Economic History Review, XII (1959-60).
- Wright Jr, J.L., Creeks & Seminoles, (Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1990).
