Talk:Joseph Brant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Image:Joseph Brant.jpg
Joseph Brant

Contents

[edit] Birthplace

Allan W. Eckert's The Wilderness War (pp 7, 440-441) has Brant's birthplace as Shenango, "located on the right bank of the Ohio River below present Pittsburgh... near present Leetsdale, Pennsylvania". Shenango disappeared about 1748.

Also, Tiyanoga ("King Hendrick") was a friend of Brant's stepfather, but not Brant's grandfather. Brant's stepfather was the son of Saga-yean-qua-rash-tow, one of the "four kings" who were taken to England in 1710 by Peter Schuyler. If no one objects I'll make these changes. -- Mwanner 02:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'll object. :-) I love Eckert's books, but his scholarship does not always agree with academic sources, especially with regards to certain details about American Indians. He's probably not the best source for that kind of information. I don't think anyone knows for sure where Brant was born; I'd check other academic sources before disagreeing with Graymont. The best place for more infomation for this article is probably:
  • Kelsay, Isabel Thompson. Joseph Brant, 1743-1807, Man of Two Worlds. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1984.
I haven't read it, but historians often cite that book. By the way, Shenango was actually probably the Shawnee village of Logstown, present Economy, Pennsylvania, if memory serves. --Kevin Myers 02:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Glad I asked. BTW, Eckert makes a point of saying that "the village of Shenango ... should not be confused with the village of Logtown." I'll read further before jumping into anything. I remain somewhat skeptical about the Hendrick-as-grandfather claim, though. -- Mwanner 12:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I know I've read something somewhere about Hendrick-as-grandfather in the last couple of years, but I'm not sure where. What I read also talked about the recent interpretation that there were actually two Hendricks, and that historians have all along unwittingly combined two different Mohawk men into one biography. If you're interested, this info might have been in this book:
  • Shannon, Timothy J. Indians and Colonists at the Crossroads of Empire: The Albany Congress of 1754. Cornell University Press, 2000.
Looking through some references, I did find one academic history (McConnell, A Country Between) that describes Logstown & Shenango as two different towns, as Eckert says. I guess the lesson is that there are many points of disagreement about numerous details. I don't want to give the impression that I think Eckert is "wrong" about these things (although there are other details about which he is almost certainly wrong), since even academic historians quite frequently differ on the details. But academic historians rarely cite Eckert as a source — they often regard his books as novels, not history — so we probably should take the same cautious approach in Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers 04:10, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Not to belittle academic historians, but any time two of them disagree, at least one of them is wrong. ;-) I do thank you for the recommendations, though. I will say that I found Eckert's novelishness a bit off-putting at first, but not too off-putting having come to him directly from James Flexner's Lord of the Mohawks; "Gravely sipping Johnson's rum, watching every change of the white man's expression, Hendrick let drop a question about white policy toward his nation which he did not understand" (p. 39). Incidentally, Flexner has Brant (Sagayeeanquarashtow) as Joseph Brant's grandfather (properly, step-grandfather), not Hendrick. I suspect Flexner may be Eckert's source in this. Mwanner 13:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Kelsay's book is excellent, though it's a challenge using it to work on the article. Thanks again for the reference. Mwanner June 28, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I'm very happy you're working on the article. If you're ambitious, still needed in the article is some mention of his wives and children, the tragic death of his son by Brant's own hand, Brant's perhaps revolutionary efforts at creating pan-tribal unity, and Brant's work as mediator in the Northwest Indian War — and whatever else you find is important. --Kevin Myers June 28, 2005 13:21 (UTC)
I have made a stab at covering your suggestions, though much more could be done. In particular, I added a link to the Northwest Indian War, though it mentions Brant not at all. I hope to get back to this at some point, but I'm afraid it won't be any time soon. -- Mwanner June 28, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
1830s lithograph based on the last portrait of Brant, an 1806 oil on canvas painting by Ezra Ames.
1830s lithograph based on the last portrait of Brant, an 1806 oil on canvas painting by Ezra Ames.

A few weeks ago 24.29.207.144 changed the birthplace of Brant and left an edit summary saying: Akron is not near the Ohio River, but rather, on the banks of the Cuyahoga River. I am fairly sure that this page had the two names mixed up. He was born in Ohio, on the banks of the Cuyahoga River. Does anyone know for sure that this is correct, or is it extrapolation based on general data? I'd prefer that the article stated generally that he was born near Akron and the Ohio River rather than guestimating a location. --NormanEinstein June 28, 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Kelsay has John Norton, Brant's secretary, saying that he was born "at Cuyahoga, meaning either a village at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River (site of present Cleavland, Ohio), or somewhere along that stream..." I think the present, vague "on the banks of the Cuyahoga River" is, therefore, appropriate. -- Mwanner June 28, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
Great work on this article, Mwanner! When we get time, I hope we can all get this article to "featured" status. --Kevin Myers July 1, 2005 04:28 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I would have done more, but I ran out of time on an interlibrary loan, and working from memory just doesn't cut it for me anymore! I should just break down and buy the book, I suppose. Mwanner July 2, 2005 01:59 (UTC)

[edit] First Nation/American Indian

I had trouble with the First Nation addition when I first saw it, but I'm reverting back to it because the last third of his life was spent in Canada. It's too bad there is not a real useful term that encompasses Canadian and American Indians-- after all, the boundary between the countries was imposed from without. As I write this, though, I realise that the order should be different. Will fix. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never thought previously that "American Indian" means "American" as in "U.S. of America"; I always thought it meant "American" as in "the Americas". However, I understand that some people think of the term differently. In any event, we need to think of a different wording, because, while his people may have been a First Nation, he individually was certainly not "the most well-known ... First Nation of his generation". - Nat Krause 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It does mean the Americas, but that includes all of the Americas. Tell you what, though, I've seen just enough of the morass of arguments on the application of different terms for the Indians of the Americas to know that I don't want any part of the discussion. If you want to change it back, be my guest, I won't revert it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The terminology is particularly tricky for American Indians like Brant, since Indians of his era living along the U.S-Canadian border apparently have to be sorted by Wikipedians into First Nations and Native Americans, two terms that did not exist in his time. Whatever terminology is used, I think it should be made clear to readers in articles like this that "First Nations" and "Native Americans" are modern terms. Perhaps something like the wording I used in the War of 1812 article would do the trick: Brant was perhaps the most well-known North American Indian of his generation—people now generally called Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. A little clumsy perhaps, but it gets the information across. After this initial disambiguation, the default term in the article itself, and for historical articles like this one which span the U.S.-Canadian border, should really be "American Indian", since the other terms are anachronistic and (to some) country-specific. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Works for me-- it's not too clumsy, though it's too bad it has to come so early in the article. Still, I think it works. I've made the change. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molly - Sister of Joseph Brant

About Molly Brant, sister of Joseph Brant, it says that Johnson married her. But on Johnson's article, it says he "never" married. What's the truth?

Actually, the Molly Brant article says they had a common-law marriage. So, they didn't get married according to European customs, but by Eastern Woodlands Indian standards, they were married because they behaved as if they were. The Johnson article might lead one to believe that Johnson was cheating on her, but monogamy was also not a strict custom of Eastern Woodlands Indians. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] his surname is Brant???

just wondering guys does anyone know how he came to be known as "Joseph Brant"? And how did his family get the surname "Brant" from? 172.145.65.148

Well the article says his mother married Brant Canagaraduncka, so he probably took his step-father's first name as a surname. Adam Bishop 06:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate spellings

I added Tyandaga. I'm from Burlington, and that is the correct spellings for one of the districts of Burlington, as well as one of our library branches.

[edit] Jacob Brant

Genealogy.rootswebb gave Jacob Brant's birth and death dates 1786-1847. In the article it states in section Later years, legacy, some descendants Generations 2-4. Jacob (1786-1947), that is 161 years which must be a typo. I changed the death date per the above source.--Dakota 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolution

I was just wondering that why did he choose to support the British over the Americans during the war. I need some help for school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.52.18 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Brant chose the side he thought would win and would most benefit him and his people. By the time of the war, the Mohawks had lost most of their land to the British colonies. When the war broke out, Brant happened to be in London to discuss past land grievances, and British officials told him that if the Iroquois abandoned their traditional neutrality and supported the Crown, they would be rewarded with a favorable land agreement. Brant returned home and encouraged the Iroquois to support the British, although most Oneidas and Tuscaroras sided with the Americans.
It didn't work out the way the British had promised, of course. The British lost the war and signed away all of the native land to the Americans. In Brant's words, the British "sold the Indians to Congress." According to historian Barbara Graymont, "The Indians were manipulated and exploited by the British government to serve the purposes of the empire; they were encouraged to cede their land in time of peace, pressured to become military allies in time of war, ignored in the treaty of peace...."
Not that Brant necessarily made a wrong or naive choice. Like other native leaders, he had few good options when trying to shape events far beyond his control. —Kevin 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy Questions

I have a relative (first name is Brant, carried down thru the years they say from Joseph Brant) who is supposedly a decendant and has heard that their is a scholarship of sorts assocatied with being a decendant of Joseph Brant. Has anyone heard of this??? Denise Friedmann 68.81.85.82 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Here?

Can someone tell me where "here" is in reference to the following line from the article: "During his lifetime, Brant was the subject of many portrait artists, both here and abroad" I was sure Brant pre-dated the internet. Dr Mullet 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem likely that it meant the US or possibly Canada. In any case it added nothing, so I have removed it. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested insert for your consideration

Hello. I have a suggested insert or addition. I am deferring to you as the primary authors-editors. This suggested insert relates to Brant at Cherry Valley, Brant as compassionate, and Brant as a Freemason. This would probably fit after your paragraph on the Wyoming Valley and Cherry Valley massacres. Here’s some possible verbiage:

Lt. Col. William Stacy of the Continental Army was the highest ranking officer captured during the Cherry Valley massacre. Several accounts indicate that during the fighting, or shortly thereafter, Col. Stacy was stripped naked, tied to a stake, and was about to be tortured and killed, but was spared by Joseph Brant. William Stacy, like Joseph Brant, was a Freemason. It is reported that Stacy made an appeal as one Freemason to another, and Brant saved his life.

For your info, here is some background information with related references:

  • Barker, Joseph: Recollections of the First Settlement of Ohio, Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio (1958) p. 35; original manuscript written late in Joseph Barker's life, prior to his death in 1843.
  • Drake, Francis S.: Memorials of the Society of Cincinnati of Massachusetts, Boston (1873) pp. 465–67.
  • Edes, Richard S. and Darlington, William M.: Journal and Letters of Col. John May, Robert Clarke and Co, Cincinnati, Ohio (1873), pp. 70–1.

Barker reports that “Col. William Stacy from New Salem, Massachusetts, he some time an Officer of the Revolution, was taken prisoner by the Indians on the Mohawk River and was sentenced to the flames and was rescued from the stake by the Chief, Brandt, on his making it known he was a Freemason.”
Drake reports that “…he [Col. Stacy] was on the 11th Nov. 1778, surprised and captured at Cherry Valley, N.Y., by a large force of Indians and Tories under Cols. Butler and Brant, and only escaped torture at the stake, to which he had already been tied, by making the freemason’s sign, which was recognized by the latter.”
Edes and Darlington report “William Stacey; in 1778 lieutenant-colonel of Alden’s Massachusetts regiment of the line; taken prisoner at Cherry Valley, New York by a detachment of Tories and Indians, under Butler and Brant. The latter rescued him from burning at the stake, to which he was tied by the savages.”

Regards, ColWilliam 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No recent activity on this discussion page. Implemented suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting story. There are several accounts of Brant saving prisoners, and more than one having to do with Freemasons. Some of them are tall tales and legends, but Brant did indeed avoid killing prisoners unless necessary. Eventually I hope the article will address Brant's position and activities with regard to prisoners. —Kevin Myers 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have had heard this story as well, and had forgotten about it. And, yes as well, to tall tales being spread about such incidents. But, the tall tales have a basis in fact---what is doubtful is that it happened more than once or twice. The Col. Stacy story, though, is true. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Good discussion. And here is a further comment…the above three references “are what they are”. This is not meant facetiously. Rather, sometimes the historical record is not 100% conclusive, particularly for this time period and for this frontier locale. An historical mention of the incident by Joseph Brant would provide confirmation; however none has been found. But the absence of mention in histories of Joseph Brant does not negate the event. This event would have been of much less importance to Brant than to William Stacy, whose life was spared. Nonetheless, there are additional pertinent references to the three above, which seem to corroborate:
  • "I have often heard it asserted by the old residents of Cherry Valley, that he [Brant] saved the life of Lieut. Col Stacy, who was second in command of the fort, but being outside, was made prisoner when Col. Alden was killed. It is said Stacy was a freemason, and as such made an appeal to Brandt, and was spared. Judge James S. Campbell, of Cherry Valley, who was then a child and a prisoner, informs me, that he recollects seeing Col. Stacy stripped of his clothing, as if about to be murdered, but his life was spared." - This quote is from the book by Levi Beardsley, Reminiscences; Personal and Other Incidents; Early Settlement of Otsego County (1852).
  • A newspaper article of the time mentions “the lieutenant-colonel [Stacy], all the officers and continental soldiers, were stripped and drove naked before them [Indians of the Six Nations, and Loyalists].” - This quote is from the New Jersey Gazette newspaper of November 25, 1778, as referenced in the book by Frank Moore (published in 1860), Diary of the American Revolution from Newspapers and Original Documents. Regards, -- ColWilliam (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cruikshank provides some more details. He says that Butler purchased officers captured by the Indians at Cherry Valley. Butler also wrote that when he wanted the return of some of the women and children Brant assisted. I find it hard to believe that Brant, a Mohawk, could have taken Stacy away from the Seneca without some type of deal being struck before hand. The Butler papers could be checked for confirmation. BradMajors (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are enough instances to indicate Brant was somehow different from the Seneca. But was this because Brant was different, or was it because the Mohawks conducted war differently from the Seneca? The Seneca were doing what they had done for hundreds of years, while the Mohawks were the most "anglicized" of the Six Nations. Was John Deserontyon any better or worse than Brant?
The British paid the Iroquois for prisoners. When Brant went around marking children as his property at Cherry Valley could a motivation be financial gain? -- BradMajors (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descendants

I would like to recommend the deletion of some of the descendants of Joseph Brant since most of these people are not notable people and Wikipedia is for notable people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability BradMajors 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. An early editor apparently put in a bunch of family information in this article, as well as the Mary Brant and William Johnson articles. Almost of of this should be deleted, keeping only the connections to close relatives with articles. —Kevin Myers 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. We have had this same problem over at the William Wallace article, with all sorts of people claiming to be descendants (a dubious claim to begin with) adding information to the article. Once this begins, and is not dealt with, the flood gates can be opened. Simply put, being the descendant of a notable person (assuming such claim of descent is proven) does not make one notable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. ColWilliam 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source?

Thanks User:BradMajors for finding that 1856 source for Brant's purchase (and sale) of a slave. It's great to have primary sources, but I think it is wrong to remove the link to where I found the informantion, [1] the city museum of Guelph, Ontario. It is fair to assume that the museum website is reliable (the town archivist would face disciplinary action for inaccuracies), and it is certainly more accessible to our readers than the 1856 publication. I suggest we include both. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's great that the text is available on Google Books, but is that sufficient? As I understand it, it is not as "free" and stable as a Gutenberg text. I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong, and that the Google Book will remain where it is. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Google books is at least as available as a website, and if it disappears from Google books there is the library. Gutenberg would be better, but I was not aware they had this book. BradMajors (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The book is available on google book search and I have added a link to it in the article. Since this book contains Pooley's original story it should be the most reliable source for verifying that the information in the Joseph Brant article is correct. It is not safe to assume the content in a museum article is correct. Compare the information on the the Guelph website with the information on Pooley on the National Archives website: [[2]]. The National Archives says that Pooley was with Brant for five years while the Guelph website says that she was with Brant for twelve years. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography says that her name was not "Sophia Burthen Pooley", but rather that Burthen was her maiden name and hence her name is "Sophia Pooley". Then there is the oddity that it says she was sold for $100, but the currency in use in Canada at that time was pounds.
It would be useful to add a good web-link in "external links" or "further reading" section on Sophia Pooley or early slavery in Canada, but I am not aware of a really good link. BradMajors (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The discrepancy of whether she was sold by Brant at 12 years old, or after 12 years, is in that original text you found. It's strange that the editor allowed that to slip by. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)