{"id":630,"date":"2016-12-09T01:51:15","date_gmt":"2016-12-09T01:51:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/?page_id=630"},"modified":"2016-12-14T00:36:47","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T00:36:47","slug":"the-department-the-society-government-missionary-collaboration-in-british-north-america-as-background-to-the-mohawk-primer-of-daniel-claus","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/the-department-the-society-government-missionary-collaboration-in-british-north-america-as-background-to-the-mohawk-primer-of-daniel-claus\/","title":{"rendered":"The Department & the Society: Government-Missionary Collaboration in British North America"},"content":{"rendered":"

A<\/em> Primer for the use of the Mohawk Children<\/em>\u00a0was\u00a0written in 1786 with the intention of being used for the education of Mohawk children in the reading and writing of their own language and basic English.[1]<\/a> One of the most intriguing elements in this text is the identity of its author: Daniel Claus, a senior employee of the Indian Department. That Claus, a government official, should be engaged in the production of a text with such missionary intent raises certain questions; namely, what was the relationship between the attempted conversion of North American peoples to Christianity and the Indian Department, the government branch responsible for managing political relations between them and the Crown. The details of this relationship can be seen most clearly in considering the relationship between the Indian Department and the Anglican Church\u2019s missionary body, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG). The SPG was closely tied to the British government and the Indian Department, and visibly acted to support Indian Department policies shaping their dealings with the Mohawk, while also being equally implicated in land encroachment and dispossession of Mohawk territory. With an understanding of how missionary work was so closely tied to the objectives \u2013 explicit and implicit \u2013 of the Indian Department, the existence\u00a0of Daniel Claus\u2019 Primer<\/em> can be placed in its proper context, and better understood.<\/p>\n

At the primary time of our study, the period roughly between the Seven Years War and the years following the American Revolution, the SPG, one of the first major British missionary organizations in existence, was not even a century old.[2]<\/a>\u00a0The growth of this important missionary organization coincided with, and was directly linked to, one of the\u00a0greatest expansions in Britain\u2019s overseas empire. In 1701, when the Society was officially formed, \u201cBritish expansion and success in wars\u2026 saw the Thirteen Colonies in the eastern woodlands of North America under British control\u2026 while, further north, much of Acadia was occupied and Newfoundland about to be.\u201d[3]<\/a> While this implied a connection between a growth in missionary work and the growth of overseas, imperial territory, there were political connections apparent in the Society\u2019s parent organization as well. Traditionally, the Anglican Church and British government were considered \u201ctheologically and practically two aspects of a single national community,\u201d[4]<\/a> a pair of linked organizations whose connection, one can reasonably assume, would be carried over to the Anglican Church\u2019s new-formed imperial subsidiaries. This political context visibly shaped the SPG\u2019s administration and operation; the Society\u2019s charter authorized its operation throughout the territories of the British colonies,[5]<\/a> establishing clearly that the SPG was intended to operate as the closely related, religious partner to Britain\u2019s political, colonial expansion.<\/p>\n

While that alone implies a connection between the British Empire, as a political entity, and the SPG\u2019s mission of spreading the gospel, a more significant connection \u2013 one specifically tied to the Empire\u2019s policies and objectives \u2013 can be seen in the SPG\u2019s annual sermons. These sermons were delivered annually in London every February, under the sponsorship of the SPG. They were delivered\u00a0“by distinguished clergymen, and\u2026 bound\u2026 and widely distributed in Great Britain and in the colonies.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0Taken together, they\u00a0reveal\u00a0how the SPG wished to portray itself to the British public. While the primary objective of the SPG, outlined by Richard Willis in 1702, was simply to better root Anglicanism within the society of the Thirteen Colonies, and from there to spread it to North American peoples,[7]<\/a> within the next few years worldly, material benefits began to be stressed in the annual sermons. Bishop Williams, in the sermon of 1706,\u00a0 implied that proselytizing to English colonists would bring \u201ceconomic advantage\u2026 to the people of England,\u201d and also implied that the spread of the Anglican religion might bring Indigenous peoples into alliance with the English. [8]<\/a> The SPG clearly wished to be seen as an organization furthering the political and material well being of the British Empire. In the process, it cast itself as a part of that Empire, and a body engaged in furthering its policies.<\/p>\n

In considering the SPG\u2019s role in supporting the Empire, however, there are a limited number of examples one can draw on to illustrate the success of the SPG\u2019s efforts. As a missionary organization, the SPG failed to convert large amounts of North American peoples. The mission to the Mohawk was\u00a0\u201cthe only one that produced any long-term results.\u201d[9]<\/a> As such, the SPG\u2019s success with the Mohawk must be considered an outlier, compared to its interactions with other Indigenous\u00a0groups. Though an outlier, as one of the only\u00a0SPG missions to see some success, \u00a0the Mohawk mission serves as\u00a0a good illustration of the SPG\u2019s broader intentions as a missionary organization.<\/p>\n

The Indian Department was, in contrast, a relatively new body. With the appointment of William Johnson as the Northern Department Superintendent of Indian Affairs in 1756, the British Crown had established a local authority capable of managing diplomatic relations with North American peoples and \u201c[mediating] local disputes\u201d without the need to address them through Colonial governments.[10]<\/a> The creation of the Indian Department both allowed increased British control over Indigenous-related policy and diplomacy, and (at least in theory) fostered stability between Indigenous peoples and the Thirteen Colonies. It removed colonial elites’ authority for dealing with Indigenous peoples. Colonial officials had a tendency to be unfairly lenient in dealing with colonists involved in disputes with Indigenous peoples.[11]<\/a> William Johnson remained the Superintendent for the Northern District until his death in 1774,[12]<\/a> and the departmental policies he set remained in place throughout this period.<\/p>\n

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 embodied the department’s policies. Part of the department’s role was to convince Indigenous peoples that their land was not threatened by settler encroachment.[14]<\/a>\u00a0The Royal Proclamation attempted to fulfill this objective of soothing Indigenous fears of British expansionism. It did so by establishing the \u201cProclamation Line,\u201d a legal border between the Thirteen Colonies and Indigenous territories beyond which, in theory, colonists could not settle.[13]<\/a>\u00a0In a similar fashion, Johnson’s policies ensured friendly relations with Indigenous peoples, preventing Indigenous violence against the British populations of the Thirteen Colonies. \u00a0At the same time, Johnson\u2019s administration also sought to \u201cassume the place of the French in\u2026 alliance with western Indian nations,\u201d attempting to build relationships between various Indigenous nations and the British government characterized by \u201cbonds of friendship and mutual support.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

The cultivating of Indigenous alliance, drawing them closer to the British government through diplomatic means, was central to the role of Johnson\u2019s Indian Department, and it is in cultivating these relationships and attempting to bring the Native Americans closer to Britain that the SPG contributed to the prosecution of official Indian Department policy. The two organizations\u2019 operations in this regard also intersected in their mutual focus on the Mohawk, for Johnson, too, cultivated a relationship with them before most other Indigenous groups. Indeed, beginning with the Mohawk as the primary partner in this Indigenous-British alliance before attempting to reach out to other North American nations.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

At the same time, the Indian Department and the SPG collaborated in shaping\u00a0British policy towards the Native Americans, they were equally involved in the long-standing colonial trend of land dispossession that continued unofficially throughout the Indian Department\u2019s existence. The British Crown\u2019s attempts to curb settler expansion on the North American frontier, most clearly visible in the Royal Proclamation, translated into little actual control over this space, where legal \u201cloopholes kept alive [land] speculation and incited settler impatience,\u201d and aggressive settlers continued \u201csurveying in the Ohio valley after the Royal Proclamation.\u201d[17]<\/a> Exacerbating the problem, Johnson \u2013 though influential in Britain \u2013 had no \u201clegal force\u201d to \u201cpunish those who ignored his sanctions.\u201d[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

Such an inability to enforce regulations on Indigenous Land\u00a0is eminently visible in the Mohegan Land Case. In an attempt to gain redress for the Colonial expansion of settlement into Mohegan hunting and planting grounds in Connecticut,[19]<\/a> the most assistance Johnson could give to the Mohegans appears to have been opening the possibility for the Mohegans to air their grievances with the King,[20]<\/a> a form of assistance largely without practical value, as the Crown could have little power over the \u201ccolonial courts\u201d where the case was tried and lost. [21]<\/a><\/p>\n

Far more implicating, however, is the fact that among those willing to profit from Indigenous dispossession was William Johnson himself. With the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix, Johnson both extended the\u00a0boundary line between the territories of the Lower Great Lakes Nations\u00a0and the Thirteen Colonies, while also convincing the Six Nations to cede much of their territory in the Ohio Valley. Through these diplomatic acts Johnson used the treaty to gain large parcels of land for himself.[22]<\/a> Indeed, like many of the other colonial elites engaged in the process of enriching themselves off Native land speculation, Johnson willingly purchased this land, including \u201c100,000 acres on the Charlotte Creek\u201d for 300 pounds, and roughly 40,000 acres from the Oneidas in a separate deal.[23]<\/a> This fact is a concerning one, suggesting that even while supposedly advocating for Great Lakes peoples,\u00a0and enforcing the boundaries against settlers, Johnson used the process to ensure his personal enrichment. Thus, it becomes clear how entrenched the process of Native dispossession was in the society \u2013 or, at least, the elites \u2013 of Colonial New York; even the head of the government department theoretically responsible for preventing such exploitation appears to have been happy to enrich himself at the expense of the Indigenous peoples whose interests\u00a0he was supposed to be safeguarding.<\/p>\n

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel was similarly \u2013 though more subtly \u2013 involved in the process of land dispossession pervading this period. Throughout the eighteenth century the SPG, like other Christian missionary organizations, struggled with attempting to understand the North American\u00a0societies they were attempting to convert. The problem for missionaries centered around the basics of Indigenous \u00a0societal organization:<\/p>\n

English Christians of all persuasions had almost insuperable difficulty in imagining a Christian society that was not settled. Living in one place, pursuing agriculture, was regarded almost as a precondition for Christian living. It was not because a flighty, mobile society could not have faith in Christ; it was that such a faith could not be sustained by the permanent ministry of a settled clergymen [sic<\/em>].[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

Any other form of Christian society was, in the view of missionaries of the period, \u201csuperficial and not genuinely Christian.\u201d[25]<\/a> This view led some missionaries to view a disruption of both Native culture and traditional relations to their land as a necessary component of the missionary enterprise. John Sergeant, a Puritan missionary, who lived further east in the first half of the century, “believed that missions should be established in Indian country, reminiscent of Eliot\u2019s Praying Towns\u2026 but with white residents nearby to pass their culture onto the Indians.\u201d[26]<\/a> Even more blatantly centered in land encroachment was the further-developed suggestion of William Smith to establish hundred-thousand acre missions in Ohio and New York, to be inhabited by \u201cboth white and Indian yeomen farmers working small, inalienable plantations.\u201d[27]<\/a> The possibility that this idea had more to do with \u201cuncivilized peoples living on fertile, uncultivated lands\u201d that could be, instead, \u201coccupied by sturdy, white yeomen farm families\u201d[28]<\/a> is a genuine one, suggesting the blatant appearance of involvement in land dispossession that some missionary plans could take on.<\/p>\n

Compared to these relatively extreme projects, the SPG\u2019s mission in Mohawk territory remained very conventional, as it focused primarily on religious teaching; that conventional form, however, had similar implications. The primary European elements the SPG brought into Mohawk territory were a school for training Mohawk catechists, an Anglican church, and the circulation of devotional texts among Mohawk worshippers.[29]<\/a> This was at least partially a result of Sir William Johnson\u2019s influence on the SPG. Johnson had become a member of the Society in 1766, and exhorted the SPG to increase their presence among the Mohawk, especially stressing his desire for a constant missionary presence among the Mohawk, and the idea that such an establishment might draw \u201cOneidas and others\u201d of the Six Nations toward the Anglican Church.[30]<\/a> This cultivation of the SPG\u2019s operations in Mohawk territory was pursued as a direct offshoot of the Indian Department\u2019s policies, as a method by which to \u201chold the Indians to the English side\u201d[31]<\/a> in the Seven Years\u2019 War, and later to attempt to \u201cconciliate\u201d them and convince them of the Crown\u2019s friendship as fears of land dispossession and settler encroachment increased.[32]<\/a> Here, one can see a direct relationship between the Indian Department and the SPG, with the two co-ordinating to shore up British policy with the Mohawk and the Six Nations as a whole.<\/p>\n

While the joint operation of the SPG and Indian Department supported official policy, the basic character of extending Christianity in this fashion to the Mohawk had a disruptive undercurrent. The implementation of singular, missionary-run Churches in Mohawk territory implied an attempt to create a \u201cterritorial Christendom, with clergy ministering to settled parishioners\u201d[33]<\/a> in a\u00a0Haudenosaunee society\u00a0that was not structured in as similar\u00a0a manner as a European one, and which inhabited large territories on which even the agriculturally based Mohawks\u00a0\u201cwent out on the hunt each winter, [taking] them away from their villages for up to two months.\u201d[34]<\/a> Encouraging settled, Church-centered communities had been used before as a means to divide Indigenous\u00a0territories, both to make European encroachment more practicable, and in conjunction with it. For example, in 1717, using the justification of facilitating religious conversion and civilizing, the governor of Connecticut enacted legislation that:<\/p>\n

\u2026included the division of [Mohegan] common lands into family lots that would pass through the father\u2019s line, the lease of a sizeable proportion to settlers, and the appropriation of five hundred acres for the settlement of a minister.[35]<\/a><\/p>\n

In the spreading of traditional, parish-organized Christianity to the Mohawk, we can see the SPG laying a framework of similar import that \u2013 while more subtle \u2013 implies the same eventual fate for Mohawk territory. If both the spreading of traditional Christian community organization, and such aggressive acquisition of Native land are merely two stages of the same process of eventual land dispossession, one must consider if Johnson\u2019s desire to support the SPG\u2019s missions in Mohawk territory had more interest than simply fulfilling the Crown\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n

With the relationship between the Indian Department, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and the process of land dispossession fully visible, our consideration must return to the missionary texts that lay at the center of this converging network of interests \u2013 of which our text is a conspicuous example. At the time of the creation of the Primer<\/em> in the 1780s, Daniel Claus\u00a0served as the Indian Department\u2019s Deputy Agent for the Six Nations in Canada.\u00a0[36]<\/a>\u00a0In this post he was responsible for the Mohawk who had just relocated to the Canadas during the American Revolution, including a major community affiliated with Joseph Brant that would eventually settle on the Grand River.[37]<\/a> This dislocation from their traditional lands resulted in a major disruption in the Anglican institutions that had originally been established, with the current resident missionary, John Stuart, imprisoned by the American authorities for three years.[38]<\/a> Without the SPG\u2019s missionary, the Mohawk catechists, Paulus Sahonwadi and another named Thomas, continued to teach the Mohawk \u201cchildren\u2026 from scraps of paper, until Daniel Claus\u2026 could provide them with primers and prayer books that he had translated in Mohawk.\u201d[39]<\/a> Claus\u2019 Primer, then, represents the re-establishment of missionary-regulated texts among the Mohawk after the disruption of the Revolution.<\/p>\n

The fact that such a restoration was even possible spoke to the fact that, in their political goals in cultivating Anglicanism among the Mohawk, the Indian Department and the SPG had been successful. The figures that had converted to Anglicanism, most notably Joseph Brant, led the Mohawk to side with the Crown in the American Revolution.[40]<\/a> The Anglican faith and British loyalty survived even the end of the Revolution, when without British opposition, the Americans claimed the lands of other Indigenous groups \u201cby right of conquest\u201d and then forced peace on \u201cthe tribes in a series of separate treaties\u201d[41]<\/a> negotiated after the Peace of Paris. In concluding the war between Britain and America without any Indigenous diplomatic representation,[42]<\/a>\u00a0granted them legal right to mere \u201cportions of their own lands.\u201d[43]<\/a><\/p>\n

Even in the 1790s, long after it became apparent that the Crown had \u201cbetrayed its Indian allies,\u201d[44]<\/a> the Mohawks who had settled in the Niagara region continued to lobby for Stuart \u2013 now employed by the SPG in Kingston \u2013 to return to ministering for them, an act surely suggesting that their faith had not been weakened by the apparent betrayal of the British.[45]<\/a> Equally, while the political credibility of the British suffered, and many North Americans\u00a0\u2013 undoubtedly many Mohawks as well \u2013 came to consider them \u201cunreliable allies,\u201d[46]<\/a> Joseph Brant, at least, \u201cremained loyal to Britain to the end,\u201d even though \u201cdisillusionment\u201d with Britain marked his later years.[47]<\/a> As much as could have been expected, the alliance of political interests between the British Crown and the SPG appeared to have achieved its official goal; the creation of a loyal Mohawk following, who bound themselves closer to the British through both religious and political alliance, and who ensured their peoples\u2019 continued alliance to the British Crown even after the original European cultivators of the relationship \u2013 both the SPG, and the late Sir William Johnson \u2013 were no longer present.<\/p>\n

In the matter of land dispossession, Claus’s Primer\u00a0<\/em>is situated at the end of the old period of land encroachment. After the Revolution, the Mohawk were located\u00a0on land granted through negotiation with British authorities, where conflict with the British developed instead over the interpretation of land grants \u2013 whether the British had granted \u201cright of prior occupancy\u201d or of \u201csovereignty.\u201d[48]<\/a> Such reservations afforded the Mohawk \u201crelative peace and quiet,\u201d whereas \u201cthose who remained in New York came under unrelenting pressure from individual speculators.\u201d[49]<\/a> Independent Mohawk title to their land had, at least in the view of the government, been replaced by British-granted title that \u201cmonopolized sovereignty\u201d over the land into the hands of the British government, and placed the Mohawk entirely within the European legal framework that had and would continue to allow the government to \u201cestablish rules that made Indigenous peoples suffer if they failed to cede their interests\u201d when the government wished.[50]<\/a><\/p>\n

The placement\u00a0of the Mohawk into a category of legally restricted, dependence\u00a0can easily be seen in the government interpretation of the Mohawk territorial rights to the reserve, \u201cprofessing paternalism, these officials insisted that the Indians could not be trusted with the land unless barred from leasing or selling it to anyone (except the government).\u201d[51]<\/a> With the Mohawks\u2019 displacement on to government-given lands, the final transition from dispossessing Natives of their land to restricting their land rights within a government-controlled system had been completed. Though the sovereignty of the Grand River Mohawk remains contested, the movement toward land dispossession had been ultimately successful \u2013 enmeshing the Mohawk\u00a0in the European legal structure, forcing them to directly engage with British\u00a0law, while their old land opened up to settlement.<\/p>\n

Claus\u2019 Primer <\/em>was produced in this context, at a time when colonial efforts focused on land dispossession had successfully displaced the Mohawk from their old territories, and when the Mohawk community had become more politically dependent on British law to protect their territory; a state of affairs also making further land dispossession an easy thing for the government to undertake.<\/p>\n

It is interesting to note that now, with the Mohawk at Grand River constrained, the SPG showed much less interest in renewing their mission. John Stuart remained in Kingston, and it was not another SPG missionary, but the Indian Department that brought European-regulated texts back to the Mohawk. These new texts, exemplified by the Primer<\/em>, notably do not include anything drastically departing from conventional religious material. The Primer<\/em>\u2019s section of prayers, despite occasional English instructions for the teacher, was written entirely in Mohawk,[52]<\/a> emphasizing a role of instruction in Mohawk more than in English, just as had been carried on by the Mohawk catechists before the return of these texts.<\/p>\n

This evidence of continuity in practice, despite the change in management between the Department and the SPG, offers the final piece of evidence necessary to establish a continuity between the initiatives of the Indian Department and the SPG. These two organizations mutually supported the operations of each other in dealing with the Native Americans, with both working towards fulfilling the set objectives of the British government, and with the actions of both implicitly furthering the dispossession of Native lands and their transfer into European hands. With the missionary efforts of the SPG contributing to the Indian Department\u2019s goals, it is, then, completely logical that a member of the Indian Department would be engaged in the production of this missionary text; such texts formed a distinct, important part of the processes in which the Indian Department was engaged. Without the SPG to provide such texts, the Indian Department, wishing to safeguard its interests, was perfectly willing to take on the role of providing the missionary texts that, without knowledge of this relationship between the two organizations, appear so out of character for a governmental organization.<\/p>\n

\n

Endnotes<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/a>Daniel Claus, A Primer for the use of the Mohawk Children<\/em>, 2nd<\/sup> (London: C. Buckton, 1786), 1.<\/li>\n
  2. <\/a>Jeffery Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700<\/em> (New York: Routledge, 2008), 8.<\/li>\n
  3. <\/a>Daniel O\u2019Connor, Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701-2000<\/em> (London: Continuum, 2000), 7.<\/li>\n
  4. <\/a>O\u2019Connor, 8.<\/li>\n
  5. <\/a>O\u2019Connor, 8.<\/li>\n
  6. <\/a>Frank J. Klingberg, Anglican Humanitarianism in Colonial New York<\/em> (Philadelphia: The Church Historical Society, 1940), 13.<\/li>\n
  7. <\/a>Klingberg, 14.<\/li>\n
  8. <\/a>Klingberg, 15.<\/li>\n
  9. <\/a>Cox, 35.<\/li>\n
  10. <\/a>David L. Preston, The Texture of Contact: European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers of Iroquoia, 1667-1783<\/em> (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009), 192.<\/li>\n
  11. <\/a>Preston, 193.<\/li>\n
  12. <\/a>Julian Gwyn, \u201cJohnson, Sir William,\u201d Dictionary of Canadian Biography 4 (1979). http:\/\/www.biographi.ca\/en\/bio\/johnson_william_4E.html<\/li>\n
  13. <\/a>J.R. Miller, Compact, Contract, Covenant: Aboriginal Treaty-Making in Canada<\/em> (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 69.<\/li>\n
  14. <\/a>Miller, 69.<\/li>\n
  15. <\/a>Miller, 73.<\/li>\n
  16. <\/a>Richard L. Haan, \u201cCovenant and Consensus: Iroquois and English, 1676-1760,\u201d in Beyond the Covenant Chain<\/em>, eds. Daniel K. Richter and James H. Merrell (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987), 56.<\/li>\n
  17. <\/a>John C. Weaver, The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-1900<\/em> (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2003), 155.<\/li>\n
  18. <\/a>Julian Gwyn, \u201cJohnson, Sir William,\u201d Dictionary of Canadian Biography 4 (1979). http:\/\/www.biographi.ca\/en\/bio\/johnson_william_4E.html<\/li>\n
  19. <\/a>Lisa Brooks, The Common Pot: The Recovery of Native Space in the Northeast<\/em> (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 70.<\/li>\n
  20. <\/a>Brooks, 95.<\/li>\n
  21. <\/a>Brooks, 100.<\/li>\n
  22. <\/a>Preston, 260.<\/li>\n
  23. <\/a>Julian Gwyn, \u201cJohnson, Sir William,\u201d Dictionary of Canadian Biography 4 (1979). http:\/\/www.biographi.ca\/en\/bio\/johnson_william_4E.html<\/li>\n
  24. <\/a>Cox, 32.<\/li>\n
  25. <\/a>Cox, 32.<\/li>\n
  26. <\/a>William Bryan Hart William Bryan Hart, 1998. For the Good of our Souls: Mohawk Authority, Accomodation, and Resistance to Protestant Evangelism, 1700-1780<\/em>. PhD Dissertation, Brown University (Providence: UMI Dissertation Services, Publication No. 9830451), 250.<\/li>\n
  27. <\/a>Hart, 291.<\/li>\n
  28. <\/a>Hart, 292.<\/li>\n
  29. <\/a>Cox, 34.<\/li>\n
  30. <\/a>Klingberg, 96-97.<\/li>\n
  31. <\/a>Klingberg, 89.<\/li>\n
  32. <\/a>Elizabeth Elbourne, \u201cManaging Alliance, Negotiating Christianity: Haudenosaunee Uses of Anglicanism in Northeastern North America, 1760s-1830s,\u201d in Mixed Blessings<\/em>, eds. Tolly Bradford and Chelsea Horton (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2016), 39.<\/li>\n
  33. <\/a>Cox, 35.<\/li>\n
  34. <\/a>Hart, 257.<\/li>\n
  35. <\/a>Brooks, 73.<\/li>\n
  36. <\/a>Douglas Leighton, \u201cClaus, Christian Daniel,\u201d Dictionary of Canadian Biography 4 (1979). http:\/\/www.biographi.ca\/en\/bio\/claus_christian_daniel_4E.html<\/li>\n
  37. <\/a>Miller, 80.<\/li>\n
  38. <\/a>Hart, 302.<\/li>\n
  39. <\/a>Hart, 303.<\/li>\n
  40. <\/a>Scott Manning Stevens, \u201cThe Path of the King James Version of the Bible in Iroquoia,\u201d Prose Studies<\/em> 34, no. 1 (2012): 7.<\/li>\n
  41. <\/a>Colin G. Calloway, Crown and Calumet: British-Indian Relations, 1783-1815<\/em> (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), 8.<\/li>\n
  42. <\/a>Calloway, 9.<\/li>\n
  43. <\/a>Calloway, 8.<\/li>\n
  44. <\/a>Calloway, 7.<\/li>\n
  45. <\/a>Elbourne, 49.<\/li>\n
  46. <\/a>Calloway, 227.<\/li>\n
  47. <\/a>Calloway, 228.<\/li>\n
  48. <\/a>Calloway, 48.<\/li>\n
  49. <\/a>Jon W. Parmenter, \u201cThe Iroquois and the Native American Struggle for the Ohio Valley, 1754-1794,\u201d in The Sixty Years\u2019 War for the Great Lakes, 1754-1814<\/em>, eds. David Curtis Skaggs and Larry L. Nelson (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2001), 116.<\/li>\n
  50. <\/a>Weaver, 140.<\/li>\n
  51. <\/a>Alan Taylor, The Divided Ground<\/em> (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 331.<\/li>\n
  52. <\/a>Claus, 71-92.
    \n
    \n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Bibliography<\/p>\n

    Brooks, Lisa. The Common Pot: The Recovery of Native Space in the Northeast<\/em>. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.<\/p>\n

    Calloway, Colin G. Crown and Calumet: British-Indian Relations, 1783-1815<\/em>. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.<\/p>\n

    Claus, Daniel. A Primer for the use of the Mohawk Children<\/em>. 2nd<\/sup> ed. London: C. Buckton, 1786.<\/p>\n

    Cox, Jeffrey. The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700<\/em>. New York: Routledge, 2008.<\/p>\n

    Elbourne, Elizabeth. \u201cManaging Alliance, Negotiating Christianity: Haudenosaunee Uses of Anglicanism in Northeastern North America, 1760s-1830s.\u201d In Mixed Blessings: Indigenous Encounters with Christianity in Canada<\/em>, edited by Tolly Bradford and Chelsea Horton, 38-60. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2016.<\/p>\n

    Gwyn, Julian. \u201cJohnson, Sir William,\u201d Dictionary of Canadian Biography<\/em> 4 (1979).<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.biographi.ca\/en\/bio\/johnson_william_4E.html<\/p>\n

    Haan, Richard L. \u201cCovenant and Consensus: Iroquois and English, 1676-1760.\u201d In Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and Their Neighbours in Indian North America, 1600-1800<\/em>, edited by Daniel K. Richter and James H. Merrell, 41-57. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987.<\/p>\n

    Hart, William Bryan. 1998. For the Good of our Souls: Mohawk Authority, Accomodation, and Resistance to Protestant Evangelism, 1700-1780<\/em>. PhD Dissertation, Brown University. Providence: UMI Dissertation Services. (Publication Number: 9830451.)<\/p>\n

    Klingberg, Frank J. Anglican Humanitarianism in Colonial New York<\/em>. Philadelphia: The Church Historical Society, 1940.<\/p>\n

    Leighton, Douglas. \u201cClaus, Christian Daniel.\u201d Dictionary of Canadian Biography<\/em> 4 (1979). http:\/\/www.biographi.ca\/en\/bio\/claus_christian_daniel_4E.html<\/p>\n

    Miller, J.R. Compact, Contract, Covenant: Aboriginal Treaty-Making in Canada<\/em>. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009.<\/p>\n

    O\u2019Connor, Daniel. Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701-2000<\/em>. London: Continuum, 2000.<\/p>\n

    Parmenter, Jon W. \u201cThe Iroquois and the Native American Struggle for the Ohio Valley, 1754-1794.\u201d In The Sixty Years\u2019 War for the Great Lakes, 1754-1814<\/em>, edited by David Curtis Skaggs and Larry L. Nelson, 105-124. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2001.<\/p>\n

    Preston, David L. The Texture of Contact: European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers of Iroquoia, 1667-1783<\/em>. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.<\/p>\n

    Stevens, Scott Manning. \u201cThe Path of the King James Version of the Bible in Iroquoia.\u201d In Prose Studies<\/em> 34, no. 1 (2012): 5-17.<\/p>\n

    Taylor, Alan. The Divided Ground<\/em>. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.<\/p>\n

    Weaver, John C. The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-1900<\/em>. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 2003.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    A Primer for the use of the Mohawk Children\u00a0was\u00a0written in 1786 with the intention of being used for the education of Mohawk children in the reading and writing of their own language and basic English.[1] One of the most intriguing elements in this text is the identity of its author: Daniel Claus, a senior employee […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_mc_calendar":[],"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-630","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/confrontingcolonialism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}