what is the iroquois influence thesis quizlet

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

The Native American Government That Helped Inspire the US Constitution

By: Becky Little

Updated: July 12, 2023 | Original: November 10, 2020

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 to debate what form of government the United States should have, there were no contemporary democracies in Europe from which they could draw inspiration. The most democratic forms of government that any of the convention members had personally encountered were those of Native American nations. Of particular interest was the Iroquois Confederacy, which historians have argued wielded a significant influence on the U.S. Constitution .

What evidence exists that the delegates studied Native governments? Descriptions of them appear in the three-volume handbook John Adams wrote for the convention surveying different types of governments and ideas about government. It included European philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu, whom U.S. history textbooks have long identified as constitutional influences; but it also included the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indigenous governments, which many of the delegates knew through personal experience.

“You had the Cherokee chiefs having dinner with [Thomas] Jefferson’s father in Williamsburg, and then in the northern area of course you had this Philadelphia interaction with the Delaware and the Iroquois,” says Kirke Kickingbird , a lawyer, member of the Kiowa Tribe and coauthor with Lynn Kickingbird of Indians and the United States Constitution: A Forgotten Legacy .

Since the U.S. had trade and diplomatic relationships with Native governments, Kickingbird says, thinking the constitutional framers weren’t familiar with them is like saying, “Gosh, I didn’t know the Germans and the French knew each other.”

Similarities and Differences Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the US Constitution

The Iroquois Confederacy was in no way an exact model for the U.S. Constitution. However, it provided something that Locke and Montesquieu couldn’t: a real-life example of some of the political concepts the framers were interested in adopting in the U.S.

The Iroquois Confederacy dates back several centuries, to when the Great Peacemaker founded it by uniting five nations: the Mohawks, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, the Oneida and the Seneca. In around 1722, the Tuscarora nation joined the Iroquois, also known as the Haudenosaunee. Together, these six nations formed a multi-state government while maintaining their own individual governance.

This stacked-government model influenced constitutional framers’ thinking, says Donald A. Grinde, Jr. , a professor of transnational studies at the University of Buffalo, member of the Yamasee nation and co-author with Bruce E. Johansen of Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy .

The constitutional framers “cite the Iroquois and other Native governments as examples of [federalism],” he says. “Marriage and divorce is taken care of right in the village; it’s not a thing that the national government or the chiefs have to do with. Each tribe might have its own issues, but the Iroquois Confederacy is about…unification through mutual defense and it conducts foreign affairs.” 

The chiefs of the six nations were hereditary rulers, something the framers wanted to avoid, given their grievances with Britain’s King George III . Still, the framers “did seek to borrow aspects of Iroquois government that enabled them to assert the people's sovereignty over vast geographic expanses since they found no governments in Europe with these characteristics,” Grinde and Johansen write  in Exemplar of Liberty .

Congress Formally Recognizes Iroquois Influence

The fact that many of the framers looked to Native governments for inspiration didn’t stop them from viewing Native people as inferior. This disconnect is evident in a 1751 letter from Benjamin Franklin describing the need for the 13 colonies to form a “voluntary Union” similar to that of the Iroquois Confederacy:

“It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests.”

How the Iroquois Confederacy Was Formed

In the story of the Great Law of Peace, Hiawatha and the Peacemaker convince leaders of the Five Nations to literally bury the hatchet.

10 Native American Inventions Commonly Used Today

From kayaks to contraceptives to pain relievers, Native Americans developed key innovations long before Columbus reached the Americas.

The United States’ bias and violence against Native Americans may have helped obscure the framers’ interest in their governments. However, public awareness of this connection increased around the 1987 bicentennial marking the 200th anniversary of the Constitution.

“Oren Lyons, who was a Faithkeeper for the Iroquois Confederacy, went to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and broached this subject,” Grinde says. “And then I went down to Washington and testified before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs.”

This motivated the committee’s chair, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, to help Congress pass a 1988 resolution formally acknowledging the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the U.S. Constitution. In addition to this recognition, the resolution reaffirmed “the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution”—an acknowledgement of the legitimacy and sovereignty of Native nations and their governments.

HISTORY Vault: Native American History

From Comanche warriors to Navajo code talkers, learn more about Indigenous history.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Iroquois Confederacy

Colonial America to 19th Century

The Iroquois Confederacy — or the Haudenosaunee Confederacy — was a league made up of six distinct Native American Indian nations that spoke the same language. The Confederacy is most well-known for its role in the Fur Trade and the major wars that shaped the American Colonies.

Cornplanter was a member of the Turtle Clan of the Seneca Tribe. This painting was done by F. Bertoli in 1796. Image Source: New-York Historical Society Museum & Library .

What was the Iroquois Confederacy?

The Iroquois Confederacy — also known as the Six Nations and the Haudenosaunee — was a league made up of six distinct Native American Indian nations that spoke the same language, called “Iroquois.” The nations were the Mohawks, Cayugas, Oneidas, Onondagas, Senecas, and Tuscaroras. The Confederacy held significant influence and importance among Indians in eastern North America during the Colonial Era and into the 19th Century. With a population of about 8,500 people living in settlements in New York and northern Pennsylvania, the Iroquois Confederacy maintained a prominent role in the struggle for dominance over the Great Lakes Region and the Fur Trade. As the British gained control of North America, the Iroquois allied with them, but the alliance led to division among the Iroquois nations during the American Revolutionary War. Following the war, many Iroquois were displaced as America expanded westward.

Iroquois Confederacy Facts

The nations that make up the Confederacy called themselves “Haudenosaunee,” meaning “people of the longhouses.” They also used the name “Great League of Peace.”

The name “Iroquois” was used by the French, and is believed to have been taken from the Algonquian word, “Irinakhoiw,” meaning “rattlesnake.”

The original five nations who were part of the Iroquois Confederacy were the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. The British referred to them as the Five Nations.

The initial purpose of the Confederacy was to end conflicts between the five nations. As Europeans moved into the region, the purpose expanded to managing treaties and relationships with the French, English, and others.

During Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713) , the Iroquois Confederacy allied with the English. When the war concluded, the French agreed to recognize the alliance between the two.

Around 1722, the Tuscarora left North Carolina, moved north, and joined the Confederacy. Afterward, the British referred to the Confederacy as the Six Nations.

The Iroquois often adopted smaller tribes into the Confederacy, but they were not full members. The Iroquois also considered some tribes, like the Shawnee and Lenape, to be part of the Confederacy by conquest.

The tribes that made up the Six Nations primarily lived in the Great Lakes Region, including most of present-day upstate New York, but also lived as far south as Pennsylvania and later in the Ohio Country.

Iroquois Confederacy Society

Longhouses and villages.

Longhouses were communal buildings that were the center of activity in Iroquois villages, which were often found in fortified towns that were surrounded by palisades. The towns also operated as trading posts, and the palisades offered protection from attacks.

Inside each longhouse was a series of hearths, which identified each group that lived within its walls.

Matrilineal Descent

In Iroquois society, ancestry was traced through women. Within each longhouse was a group of women and the eldest served as the matriarch and directed the daily activities. Inheritance and political succession also ran through the matriarchs. When the women married, the men joined their longhouse.

The Nine Clans of the Iroquois

There were nine Iroquois clans and their names were based on animals. Members of a clan were considered families, even if they lived in separate villages.

The nine clans were: Turtle, Bear, Wolf, Hawk, Heron, Beaver, Deer, Snipe, and Eel.

Each clan had a Clan Mother, who was responsible for overseeing the clan, directing its activities, and selecting men to represent the clan at the Iroquois Grand Council.

Iroquois Confederacy Government and Politics

The great law of peace.

The Great Law of Peace is the constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, which is recorded on wampum belts. It is both a political and religious tradition, shared orally, as the laws are found within the story of the prophet Deganawida — the Peacemaker — and Hiawatha, an Onondaga chief.

The wampum belts represented a “chain” that joined the nations together. At the center was the Great Tree of Peace, which represented the Onandaga. 

Iroquois Grand Coucil

The Great Law of Peace established the Grand Council, which included 50 sachems — chiefs — who were responsible for meeting and discussing solutions to problems.

The Grand Council had the power to make treaties and alliances with outsiders and was responsible for keeping peace between the nations.

The older tribes, the Mohawk and Seneca, sat on one side during council meetings, while the Cayuga and Oneida sat on the other. The Onondaga sat in the middle, which is where they were geographically located.

In the event there was a disagreement, the Onondaga had the deciding vote. They were also known as the “Fire Keepers” and hosted all meetings of the Grand Council.

The Tuscaroras did not have a vote on the Grand Council and were only permitted to speak if it helped the other nations. Further, if they had an issue, it had to be presented through the Cayuga.

As part of the matrilineal society, the participants in the Grand Council were chosen by the Clan Mothers.

Chiefs and Clan Mothers

Chiefs were chosen by Clan Mothers to participate in the Grand Council. Each chief held the title for life and they were expected to serve as mentors and role models.

Clan Mothers are responsible for overseeing the welfare of each clan and the Chief. Each Clan Mother had her own wampum belt that was passed down to a daughter or female relative. The Clan Mothers were also responsible for mentoring and setting an example for others, and they were also tasked with naming children and approving marriages.

Each Clan Mother had Faith Keepers who helped ensure the ceremonial and religious traditions were kept.

The Fur Trade and the Beaver Wars

The Beaver Wars were a series of battles that were fought over control of the Fur Trade in Colonial America. During the wars, the Iroquois Confederacy took control of the Fur Trade, eliminated rival Native American Indian tribes, and terrorized French settlements. The French and their Indian allies responded with attacks on Iroquois villages and English settlements. The conflict lasted for nearly a century and ended with the Peace of Montreal in 1701.

The Covenant Chain with the English

The Covenant Chain was a treaty, represented by a wampum belt, that allied the Iroquois Confederacy with the British Colonies. The Covenant Chain was renewed with meetings between Iroquois leaders and British agents, including Sir William Johnson.

After settlers moved too far west, the Iroquois announced the Covenant Chain was broken. Soon after, colonial governors found out the French were building forts in the Ohio Country. 

In England, the Board of Trade was concerned war was imminent, and believed the alliance with the Iroquois Confederacy was vital to the safety of the American Colonies. The Board of Trade instructed George Clinton, the Governor of New York, to invite colonial leaders and Iroquois leaders to a conference to mend the relationship and restore the Covenant Chain.

The conference was held in Albany, New York from June 19, 1754, to July 11, 1754 . After lengthy discussions, including a speech from the Mohawk chief, Theyanoguin, who was also known as King Hendrick , the Covenant Chain was restored. 

Hendrick fought with the British during the French and Indian War and was killed at the Battle of Lake George (September 8, 1755) .

Iroquois Confederacy and the French and Indian War

At the outset of the war, the Seneca allied with the French, due to their trade relationship. However, all five Iroquois nations were allied with the British by 1758. Iroquois warriors participated in the capture of Fort Niagara in 1759 and the Montreal Campaign of 1760, which led to the surrender of New France to Britain.

The Seneca and Pontiac’s Rebellion

At the conclusion of the French and Indian War , the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, left Great Britain in control of a vast new empire in North America. 

As part of the treaty, France turned most of its territory in North America over to Britain. This included lands in the Ohio Country, Illinois Country, and the Great Lakes Region. Although the French laid claim to the land, very few French colonists lived in the region. 

The primary inhabitants were from the Native American Indian tribes, like the Ottawa, who also utilized it for their hunting grounds.

Soon after, the Indians realized the British did not intend to keep their promises. Colonists living on the Eastern Seaboard also had other ideas. For them, the land on the other side of the mountains represented new opportunities for westward expansion.

An Ottawa chief, Pontiac , and a Seneca chief, Kyashuta, urged Indian tribes in the Ohio Country and the Great Lakes region to resume warfare with the British to push them off their lands. Pontiac worked with the tribes in the west, toward Detroit, and Kyashuta worked with tribes in the east, toward western New York.

The uprising started with a surprise attack on Fort Detroit on May 9, 1763. Pontiac led roughly 300 warriors against the British. However, the plot was exposed, which helped the British prepare for the attack. Pontiac laid siege to the fort, which lasted until November. Similar attacks took place throughout the Ohio Country and western Pennsylvania during the spring and summer of 1763.

In October 1763, King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763 , which prohibited settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains and reserved the land in the Ohio Country as hunting grounds for the Indians.

Despite the Proclamation, violence continued into the fall of 1764 when the British sent two expeditions into the region to put down the rebellion. Most of the Indian nations agreed to peace, but Pontiac refused to surrender and continued his fight until 1766 when he signed the Treaty of Fort Ontario.

Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768)

Following the Treaty of Fort Ontario, Sir William Johnson and John Stuart worked to ease tensions over the Proclamation Line of 1763 by having it formally surveyed. The Board of Trade agreed to the survey in 1768 and defined the boundary as such: The line started at Fort Stanwix, proceeded south and west to the confluence of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, up the Kanawha River to its headwaters, and then south to Spanish East Florida.

Meanwhile, the Iroquois Confederacy had agreed to a treaty with the Cherokee Nation, ending a war between the two factions.

After he received his instructions from the Board of Trade, Johnson negotiated the Treaty of Hard Labour with the Cherokee on October 17, 1768. The treaty set the boundary line from the confluence of the Ohio Rover and Kanawha River, to the headwaters of the Kanawha River, then south to Spanish East Florida.

Soon after, Johnson held a conference at Fort Stanwix in New York to negotiate with the Iroquois. Several colonial officials joined Johnson, including William Franklin, the Governor of New Jersey — and Benjamin Franklin’s son. According to Johnson’s account of the conference, more than 3,000 members of the Iroquois attended.

On November 5, 1768, Johnson and the Iroquois agreed to a treaty that extended the boundary line along the Ohio River to its confluence with the Tennessee River. The Iroquois ceded territory east and south of the intended boundary line to Britain, extending British territory further west — even though they did not live there. The Iroquois claimed their right to the territory south of the Ohio River as part of their conquests during the Beaver Wars.

Tribes living in the area, including the Shawnee, Delaware, and Mingo, lost their ancestral lands in the agreement — while the Six Nations retained theirs. Some of the tribes, notably the Shawnee, refused to honor the treaty, which led to hostilities with the American Colonies.

The 1768 treaty, which is also known as the Boundary Line Treaty, was adjusted several times between 1768 and 1773. However, it opened the territory to colonists for settlement in what eventually became part of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

One of the early settlements in the region was established by Ebeneezer Zane in 1769. It was originally called “Zanesburg” and it was located on the site of present-day Wheeling, West Virginia.

Lord Dunmore’s War

After the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, Americans started moving westward, into the traditional hunting grounds of the Shawnee. The Shawnee, who were upset with the influx of settlers and the loss of their land, carried out raids on settlers and settlements. 

The Iroquois Confederacy refused to help the Shawnee in their quest to stop the westward migration of Americans.

One of the attacks was made against James Boone, the son of the legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone , while Boone was leading settlers into Kentucky. The attack took place on October 9, 1773, near the Cumberland Gap, and James Boone was killed.

The Indians continued to carry out attacks on the settlers. In 1774, settlers living on the frontier, from Zanesburg to Fort Pitt, declared war on the Indians. 

Hostilities escalated and a group of Virginia settlers attacked some Mingo people at the mouth of the Yellow Creek River near present-day New Cumberland, West Virginia. During the “Yellow Creek Massacre,” at least a dozen Mingo people were killed, including the wife of Chief Logan.

The Governor of Virginia, John Murray, Lord Dunmore, responded to reports of Indian attacks by declaring war on the Shawnee and their allies.

Dunmore asked the House of Burgesses, the Virginia legislature , to raise militia forces, but the legislature declined. At the time, they were working on their response to the passage of the Intolerable Acts and the closure of the Port of Boston. On May 26, 1774, Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses and took matters into his own hands, ordering the county militias to mobilize.

Virginia forces marched into the Ohio Country to engage the Indians. Among Dunmore’s army were men like Daniel Morgan , George Rogers Clark , and Michael Cresap.

On October 10, Virginia forces, under the command of Andrew Lewis, engaged the Shawnee and Mingo at present-day Point Pleasant, Virginia. The Indian forces were led by Cornstalk, Puekeshinwa, and Blue Jacket. The Indians were forced to withdraw.

Soon after, the Indians agreed to the Treaty of Camp Charlotte on October 19, 1774, which ended hostilities. The Shawnee agreed to stop using the region for hunting and to stop harassing settlers. 

However, the Mingo refused to agree. Chief Logan, upset over the loss of his wife and other family members, refused to attend the negotiations, however, a speech, known as “Logan’s Lament,” was delivered on his behalf. It is believed the speech was given by Simon Girty. In the speech, Logan said, “Who is there to mourn for Logan — not one.”

Virginia forces responded by destroying the Mingo village of Seekunk in present-day Columbus, Ohio.

Iroquois Neutrality and the American Revolutionary War

Not long after Dunmore’s forces returned to Virginia, the Battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) took place, opening the American Revolutionary War. At the same time, Dunmore clashed with the Patriots in Williamsburg in the Virginia Gunpowder Incident (April 21–May 4, 1774) .

Five of the six nations maintained a neutral stance. The Mohawk, led by Molly Brant and her half-brother, Joseph Brant, sided with the British and Loyalists due to their strong trading relationship.

By then, William Johnson had died and was replaced as Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department by his nephew, Colonel Guy Johnson.

Attempts at an Alliance with the Iroquois Confederacy

From Boston, General Thomas Gage warned Johnson that Samuel Kirkland, a Presbyterian minister living with the Oneida might encourage the Irqouis to side with the Americans in the war. Johnson responded by sending an Anglican minister to speak with leaders in the Oneida towns.

The Second Continental Congress reached out to Kirkland and asked for his opinion on how to approach the Iroquois Confederacy. In response, Congress set up meetings between General Philip Schuyler and leaders of the Six Nations.

Meanwhile, the Governor of Canada, Guy Carleton, threatened to seize Iroquois lands if they did not support the British. After, all under the terms of various treaties, the Iroquois were considered British subjects.

Division Within the Iroquois Confederacy

By the spring of 1776, most of the Iroquois were allied with the British, including the Senecas, Cayugas, and Mohawks. Many of them moved west toward Fort Niagara, where they were protected by British forces.

However, not all nations sided with the British. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras fought with the Americans, due to the efforts of Kirland and Schuyler.

Some of the Onondagas allied with the British, but most remained neutral.

In 1777, disease swept through the Iroquois population, leaving several chiefs dead. The incident brought the Confederacy to a standstill, while it was determined who the new chiefs would be. During this time, the division between the nations continued.

Iroquois Confederacy and the Saratoga Campaign

Over the winter of 1776, British officials decided to send General John Burgoyne into the Hudson River Valley. The plan intended to cut the New England Colonies off from the others.

Although the campaign went well at first, it gradually encountered problems that led to its demise. Along the way, Iroquois warriors fought with each other during the Siege of Fort Stanwix (August 2–22, 1777) and the Battle of Oriskany (August 6, 1777) .

After Oriskany, many Iroquois decided to abandon the British, returning to their homes. Six weeks later, the first Battle of Saratoga was fought at Freeman’s Farm . It was followed by the Second Battle of Saratoga , which the Americans won.

Burgoyne and his forces were forced to withdraw. During the retreat, they were surrounded by General Horatio Gates and the Continental Army and forced to surrender. It marked the first time in history that a British Army surrendered in the field and was a major turning point in the American Revolutionary War.

Iroquois Confederacy and Sullivan’s Expedition

Despite the loss at Saragota Iroquois warriors continued to support Loyalist forces as they conducted raids on American settlements in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Ohio Country.

In July 1778, Colonel John Butler led a contingent of Loyalists and Iroquois into the Wyoming Valley Region of Pennsylvania. Settlers in the region gathered at Forty Fort for protection. Butler attacked the fort, killing more than 350 men, women, and children in what is known as the Wyoming Massacre.

American forces responded to the raids in 1779 by sending General John Sullivan on an expedition into Iroquois territory. Sullivan and his men destroyed 40 towns and burned fields, which led the Iroquois to throw their support toward the British.

Many Iroquois who supported the British relocated to refugee camps closer to Fort Niagara.

The Treaty of Paris (1783)

In the 1783 Treaty of Paris, Britain recognized the independent United States . The Iroquois living within the borders of the United States were no longer British subjects. 

Many Iroquois decided to move north into Canada. Some moved south into the Ohio County, where they joined with the Mingo and other tribes, forming new communities.

The Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784)

In 1784, the Confederation Congress called for a meeting at Fort Stanwix between American commissioners and representatives of the Iroquois Confederacy. The American commission was led by George Clinton, Governor of New York.

At the first meeting in September, the Americans offered to allow the Iroquois to return to New York if they agreed to sell a large portion of their land. The Iroquois leaders declined the offer.

A second meeting was held in October and an agreement was reached. The Americans dropped their demand for the sale of lands and the Iroquois agreed to recognize previous treaties, including the Treaty of Paris.

Iroquois Confederacy and the Code of Handsome Lake

By 1797, most of the Iroquois living in New York and Pennsylvania were restricted to reservations. Americans hoped the Iroquois would assimilate into traditional European ways of life, including farming. Unfortunately, the reservations were troubled with social issues, including alcoholism and violence, that contributed to poor economic conditions.

At the close of the 18th century, a Seneca named Handsome Lake rose to prominence, calling for the Iroquois to give up alcohol and other vices. He was influenced by Quaker missionaries who lived among the Seneca.

Like previous Indian prophets, he called on the Iroquois to embrace their traditional religious beliefs. However, he also called on the Iroquois to embrace farming and manufacturing. In his vision, the Iroquois would gain economic independence and be able to remain neutral in future conflicts between the Americans and the British.

Many Iroquois embraced the “Code of Handsome Lake,” which contributed to improved conditions.

Iroquois Confederacy and Manifest Destiny

As the United States spread across the continent, the Iroquois were caught up in many events.

During the War of 1812 , Iroquois living in Canada sided with the British, while those living in America fought with the United States. However, many of those who followed Handsome Lake’s teachings remained neutral. Following the war, both Canada and the United States pressured the Iroquois to give up more of their lands.

In New York, the construction of the Erie Canal led to more Americans moving and traveling west into Iroquois lands. Some Iroquois moved further west, but many remained. Communities in places like New York, Quebec, Ontario, and Wisconsin were sustained. Communities were also formed in Indian Territory — present-day Oklahoma.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Today

The Iroquois Confederacy still exists today , as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. 

Each nation is united by a common goal to live in harmony. Each nation maintains its own council with Chiefs who are chosen by the Clan Mother. Each nation deals with its own internal affairs but allows the Grand Council to deal with issues affecting the nations within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.

Iroquois Confederacy Significance

The Iroquois Confederacy is important to United States history for the role it played in the development of New France, the American Colonies, and the Fur Trade during the Colonial Era. Its influence played an important part in the significant conflicts of the era, including the French and Indian War, Pontiac’s Rebellion, and the American Revolutionary War.

Iroquois Confederacy APUSH Notes and Review

Use the following links and videos to study the Colonial Era, the New England Colonies, and the Saratoga Campaign for the AP US History Exam. Also, be sure to look at our Guide to the AP US History Exam .

Iroquois Confederacy APUSH Definition

The Iroquois Confederacy, or Haudenosaunee Confederacy, was a political and military alliance formed by a group of Native American Tribes located in what is now upstate New York. The league was formed in order to promote peace and cooperation among the tribes and to establish a system for resolving conflicts. The league was also a way for the tribes to unite against common enemies, such as the European colonists who were beginning to settle in the region.

Iroquois Confederacy Video for APUSH Review

This video from Native American History discusses the Iroquois Confederacy.

• Written by Randal Rust

The Harvard Law Review and the Iroquois Influence Thesis

• Articles in this Issue

Published Online : Dec 29, 2017

Page range: 225 - 240, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjals-2017-0011, © 2017 erik m. jensen, this work is licensed under the creative commons attribution-noncommercial-noderivatives 3.0 license..

129 H ARV . L. R EV . 1709 (2016) [hereinafter Developments ].

Pub. L. No. 90-284, tit. II, 82 Stat. 73, 77 (1968) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1304).

Developments , at 1709.

See 25 U.S.C. § 1303 (providing that “[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe,” but making no other mention of the possibility of federal court review of an alleged tribal violation of ICRA).

Some of the fundamental works associated with the spread of this idea in the last 30-40 years are B RUCE E. J OHANSEN , F ORGOTTEN F OUNDERS : H OW THE A MERICAN I NDIAN H ELPED S HAPE D EMOCRACY (1982); J ACK W EATHERFORD , I NDIAN G IVERS : H OW THE I NDIANS OF THE A MERICAS T RANSFORMED THE W ORLD 133 (1988) (chapter entitled “The Indian Founding Fathers”); D ONALD A. G RINDE , J R . & B RUCE E. J OHANSEN , E XEMPLAR OF L IBERTY : N ATIVE A MERICA AND THE E VOLUTION OF D EMOCRACY (1991).

The influence thesis has nevertheless been incorporated into the curricula of American school systems and some college programs as well. See Bruce E. Johansen, Reaching the Grassroots : The World-Wide Diffusion of Iroquois Democratic Traditions (2002) (providing evidence, with approval, of the spread of the influence thesis in schools), available at http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/grassroots.html ; Iroquois Confederacy and the US Constitution (curricular unit at Portland State University), available at http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/ . But see Samuel B. Payne, Jr., The Iroquois League , the Articles of Confederation , and the Constitution , 53 W M . & M ARY Q. 605, 606-07 (1996) (critically discussing the spread of the thesis in schools).

See , e . g ., infra note 40 (noting academic historian’s presentation to congressional committee of misleading quotation from George Washington); infra note 49 (noting independent historian’s misleading statement of legislative history).

See infra text accompanying note 35.

See infra notes 64 & 71 and accompanying text. The officials apparently see a tribal benefit from the thesis, but there’s no long-term benefit in supporting an indefensible thesis.

See , e . g ., Developments , at 1711 (“[T]he governments that arrived in North America searched for the particular forms of law and government with which they were familiar and, finding them lacking, sought to impose civilization and order (of their own style) upon tribes.”) (footnotes omitted); id . at 1710 (“European and American distrust of, or disinterest [ sic ] in, Indian tribal affairs led them to apply their laws and philosophies to the exclusion of Indians’ own views in those areas.”) (footnote omitted).

Or maybe everyone was too busy writing Supreme Court clerkship applications to do routine Review work.

In the first two parts of the article I examine in some detail a couple of the suspect footnotes. (That sounds excruciatingly boring, I know, but it’s no more so than any other law review subject.) In part III, I add further thoughts about why the influence thesis should be summarily rejected. Finally, in the conclusion, I note that the influence thesis has potentially negative effects on the American government’s conception of, and policy toward, American Indian nations—another reason the thesis should be interred, not celebrated.

Developments , at 1711 (footnote omitted).

Whether the founders would have accepted it is doubtful. See , e . g ., Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington (Jan. 16, 1787), reprinted in 11 T HE P APERS OF T HOMAS J EFFERSON 48, 49 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1955) (“I am convinced that these societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments.”) (emphasis added). To John Locke, after all, America, as occupied by the indigenous peoples, had been the prime example of the state of nature. See also J OHN A DAMS , A D EFENCE OF THE C ONSTITUTIONS OF G OVERNMENT OF THE U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA xv, 118 (1787; Da Capo reprint 1971) (referring to the “rudest tribes of savages in North America” and “the savages of North or South America”). (Full disclosure: Neither Jefferson nor Adams was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.)

But footnote 7 went far beyond the idea that the tribes had governments and laws, as of course they did. The authors cited and quoted from two sources that are among the usual suspects in supporting the influence thesis—a 1751 (or perhaps 1750) letter from Benjamin Franklin to James Parker and a 1988 Concurrent Resolution passed by Congress. Neither citation provides support for much of anything worthwhile—the Franklin letter because the quoted language gives a misleading idea of Franklin’s meaning and the Concurrent Resolution because it’s nonsense on stilts promulgated by a political body, not a group of scholars.

Developments , at 1710 n.7 (citing and quoting Letter from Benjamin Franklin to James Parker (Mar. 20, 1750/51) [hereinafter Franklin Letter], reprinted in 4 T HE P APERS OF B ENJAMIN F RANKLIN 117, 120 (Leonard W. Labaree ed., 1961)).

Developments , at 1710 n.7.

See U.S. C ONST . art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (giving Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”); id , art. I, § 2, cl. 3 (“excluding Indians not taxed” from the census count used to apportion representatives and direct taxes).

See supra note 13 (noting that, for some from the founding generation, the existence of tribal governments and laws wasn’t obvious).

See Erik M. Jensen, The Imaginary Connection Between the Great Law of Peace and the United States Constitution : A Reply to Professor Schaaf , 15 A M . I NDIAN L. R EV . 295, 303 (1991) (discussing founders’ dealings with Indians that went beyond land speculation) (responding to Gregory Schaaf, From the Great Law of Peace to the Constitution of the United States : A Revision of America’s Democratic Roots , 14 A M . I NDIAN L. R EV . 323 (1989)).

The gulf between general statements about colonist-tribal relationships and the purported influence of the Iroquois Confederacy is enormous. In fact, the contact between colonists and Indians often wasn’t friendly, which by itself should call into question the influence thesis. And a closer look at the Franklin letter demonstrates that Franklin didn’t mean what footnote 7 said he meant.

See A RCHIBALD K ENNEDY , T HE I MPORTANCE OF G AINING AND P RESERVING THE F RIENDSHIP OF THE I NDIANS TO THE B RITISH I NTEREST C ONSIDERED (1752), available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N05302.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext .

See Elizabeth Tooker, The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League , 35 E THNOHISTORY 305, 327 (1988) (noting that Franklin wasn’t identified as the letter’s author for a century, which suggests that we should be skeptical about overstating its influence during the founding period); Editor’s Biographical Note, Franklin Letter, supra note 14, at 117 (noting attribution of the letter to Franklin by Edward Eggleston in a note to John Bigelow, who was preparing an edition of Franklin’s work that was published in 1887-88).

K ENNEDY , supra note 19, at 28-29.

See Franklin Letter, supra note 14, at 121.

In the first paragraph of the letter, Franklin wrote:

Id . at 117.

Franklin noted that Indians had fighting skills that could have been invaluable to the colonists in the right circumstances:

Every Indian is a Hunter; and as their Manner of making War, viz. by Skulking, Surprizing and Killing particular Persons and Families, is just the same as their Manner of Hunting, only changing the Object, Every Indian is a disciplin’d Soldier. Soldiers of this Kind are always wanted in the Colonies in an Indian War; for the European Military Discipline is of little Use in these Woods.

Id . at 120.

See T HE D ECLARATION OF I NDEPENDENCE para. 20 (1776) (“He [the king] has … endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of the Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.”).

See T HE F EDERALIST N O . 24, at 61 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961):

The savage tribes on our Western frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies … . Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small Garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians.

See W ILLIAM N. F ENTON , T HE G REAT L AW AND THE L ONGHOUSE : A P OLITICAL H ISTORY OF THE I ROQUOIS C ONFEDERACY 471 (1998).

Indian nations, particularly the Iroquois, were represented in Albany, although not in the numbers that might have been expected. See T IMOTHY J. S HANNON , I NDIANS AND C OLONISTS AT THE C ROSSROADS OF E MPIRE : T HE A LBANY C ONGRESS OF 1754, at 127-30 (2000); id . at 199-200:

Franklin, on his way downriver [after the congress], wrote to [Cadwallader] Colden complaining of the delay caused by the Indians, when “after all nothing of much Importance was transacted with them.” … In light of Franklin’s dismissive remark about the Indians’ role in the congress, the notion of an Iroquois influence on the Albany Plan seems farfetched indeed.

See S HANNON , supra note 28, at 63-76. Franklin in the Parker letter had proposed a “voluntary Union entered into by the Colonies themselves” as “preferable to one imposed by Parliament” Franklin Letter, supra note 14, at 118, but by the time of the Albany Congress he was hoping that Parliament would act. See Editor’s Note 1, id . at 118.

S HANNON , supra note 28, at 198; see also F ENTON , supra note 27, at 471 (noting that Indian participants at the Congress were more interested in promoting grievances than in providing a model for the new United States).

Most important, the Franklin quotation in its unedited form—decidedly not the form intimated by footnote 7—doesn’t come close to supporting the influence thesis:

Franklin Letter, supra note 14, at 118-19.

See S HANNON , supra note 28, at 103 (“When Franklin referred to ‘Six Nations of Ignorant Savages,’ he was using the Iroquois as a negative example to illustrate the colonists’ failure to recognize their own common interests.”); see also F ENTON , supra note 27, at 471:

This bit of satire on Franklin’s contemporaries has of late inspired proponents of the idea that the writers of the United States Constitution derived its structure and separation of powers from the Iroquois Confederacy, a doctrine for which supporting evidence has escaped responsible scholars. None of Franklin’s contemporaries … left an account of the internal workings of the confederacy for James Madison to follow. Not until the middle of the nineteenth century did such appear in Lewis Henry Morgan’s classic League of the Ho - de - no - sau - nee , or Iroquois (1851). Like much of what else is advanced today as politically correct, this spurious doctrine represents invented tradition ….

See also Tooker, supra note 20, at 311-12 (noting that it was not until publication of Morgan’s 1851 work that information about the Iroquois was widely available). Tooker is doubtful the founders would have found much of the Great Law of Peace acceptable (if they had known about it to begin with). Id .

H.R. Con. Res. 331, 102 Stat. 4932 (1988).

Developments , at 1710 n.7 (quoting resolution (1) in H.R. Con. Res. 331, supra note 33). The resolution uses “to” rather than “on.”

H.R. Rep. No. 100-1031, at 2 (Comm. Print Oct. 3, 1988).

Cf . supra text accompanying note 31.

Developments , at 1710 n.7 (quoting resolution (1) in H.R. Con. Res. 331, supra note 33).

H.R. Con. Res. 331, supra note 33, Preamble.

Washington and Franklin were important presences at the Convention—Washington a brooding omnipresence, the aged Franklin, at the end of the Convention, summing up what had happened and supporting the compromises made along the way—but neither played a significant role in the details of the final document. In any event, we know Franklin’s views of the Iroquois Confederacy from the unedited version of the Parker letter discussed earlier.

Washington’s views about the Iroquois Confederacy were no more positive. At a hearing on the resolution, see S. Hrg. 100-610, Iroquois Confederacy of Nations , Hearing on S . Con . Res . 76 Before the S . Select Comm . on Indian Affairs , 100th Cong. (Dec. 2, 1987), historian Donald Grinde provided “selected factual data” to support the influence thesis, including a quotation from a September 7, 1783, letter from Washington to James Duane: “I have been more in the way of learning the Sentimts. of the Six Nations than of any other Tribes of Indians.” Reprinted in G EORGE W ASHINGTON : W RITINGS 535, 537 (John Rhodehamel ed., 1997), and quoted in S. Hrg. 100-610, supra , at 137. That sounds nice, but Washington wasn’t “admir[ing] the concepts of the … Iroquois Confederacy,” as the resolution put it. He was writing about the possibility of war if attempts were made to displace the Six Nations. He was noting that he knew more about the possibility of their resistance to removal than he knew about how other tribes would react.

S. Con. Res. No. 76, introduced at 133 C ONG . R EC . 24214, 24223 (Sept. 16, 1987).

See S. Hrg. 100-610, supra note 40.

S. Con. Res. No. 76, supra note 41.

See , e . g ., Schaaf, supra note 18 (seeing all sorts of similarities between the two documents).

S. Rep. No. 100-565, at 3 (Comm. Print Sept. 30, 1988).

Id . at 1 (noting the amendment); id . at 3 (“The amendment adopted in Committee to the third clause of the resolution will conform the language of Senate Concurrent Resolution 76 to the language of House Concurrent Resolution 331 [ see infra text accompanying note 52] which is pending in the House and is otherwise identical to Senate Concurrent Resolution 76.”).

See S. Rep. No. 100-565, supra note 45, at 1.

See Marybeth Farrell, Untitled (Sept. 30, 1988) (State News Service dispatch, dateline Washington), available on LEXIS (quoting Alex Skibine, with name misspelled, deputy counsel for Indian Affairs for House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee). Skibine added that the language ultimately adopted was “general enough that people with different interpretations of history could have enough room for discussion.” Id . Discussion yes, agreement no.

Some proponents of the influence thesis have written that the Senate voted to adopt the resolution in its original form, with the “explicitly modeled” language, and they’ve given great weight to that mythical adoption. See , e . g ., Gregory Schaaf, Indian Great Law of Peace ( Kaianerekowa ) [hereinafter Schaaf, Encyclopedia], entry in 2 E NCYCLOPEDIA OF A MERICAN I NDIAN H ISTORY 410, 412 (Bruce E. Johansen & Barry M. Pritzker eds., 2008) (stating that the Senate voted in favor of the original language and that “[f]or the first time in history, Congress officially recognized that the U.S. government was ‘explicitly modeled’ after the Iroquois Confederacy”). In support of that made-up position, Schaaf cited to the Congressional Record for the day the Senate version of the resolution was introduced (September 16, 1987), not the date the Senate voted, over a year later, after the language had been changed. The Senate website affirms, in response to a frequently asked question, that the Senate didn’t take the vote Schaaf claimed it had. See http://www.sente.gove/reference/common/faq/Iroquois_Constitution.shtml (“The answer is no” to the question, “Is it true that … [t]he Senate passed a resolution on September 16, 1787[,] stating that the U.S. Constitution was explicitly modeled upon the Iroquois Constitution?”).

See 134 C ONG . R EC . 17433 (July 11, 1988).

See 134 C ONG . R EC . 27948 (Oct. 3, 1988).

See 134 C ONG . R EC . 28140 (Oct. 4, 1988).

See 134 C ONG . R EC . 32467 (Oct. 21, 1988).

Farrell, supra note 49 (quoting congressional aide).

Quoted in id .; see also F ENTON , supra note 27, at 471; Payne, supra note 6; Philip A. Levy, Exemplars of Taking Liberties : The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the Problem of Evidence , 53 W M . & M ARY Q. 588, 603-04 (1996) (characterizing Exemplar of Liberty , supra note 5, as “a crazy quilt of inaccurate assessments, free-floating speculations, incorrect or disembodied quotations, and thesis-driven conclusions”). But see Donald A. Grinde, Jr. & Bruce E. Johansen, Sauce for the Goose : Demand and Definitions for “ Proof ” Regarding the Iroquois and Democracy , 53 W M . & M ARY Q. 621 (1996) (responding to criticism of their work).

Quoted in Marybeth Farrell, Untitled (Sept. 22, 1988) (State News Service dispatch, dateline Washington), available on LEXIS.

See H.R. Con. Res. 126, 102 Stat. 4932 (1988).

See S. Con. Res. 146, 102 Stat. 4933 (1988).

Developments , at 1710 n.9.

Barbara A. Mann, Haudensee (Iroquois) League , origin date , entry in E NCYCLOPEDIA OF THE H AUDENOSAUNEE (I ROQUOIS C ONFEDERACY ) 152 (Bruce Elliott Johansen & Barbara Alice Mann eds., 2000).

For example, the late Mohawk Chief Jake Swamp was quoted as saying, in a 1983 conversation, that “[o]ur Iroquois chiefs and clan mothers have long said that the Great Law of Peace served as a model for the U.S. Constitution. We know that our ancestors met personally with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others involved in drafting the U.S. Constitution.” Quoted in Schaaf, Encyclopedia, supra note 49, at 412. Well, that settles it then. (Would it be impolite to note that Jefferson didn’t attend the Constitutional Convention, and Franklin wasn’t involved in drafting constitutional language?)

Think John Smith and Pocahontas, Washington and the cherry tree, Eliot Ness and the Untouchables.

Mann, supra note 63, at 152. Mann notes, to her credit, that solar eclipses visible in the relevant part of North America also occurred in 1451, 1550, and 1654. Id . Even if the occurrence of an eclipse were really important in dating the Great Law of Peace, 1142 thus isn’t the only possibility.

To be fair to the Encyclopedia folks, that volume didn’t say anything about “drafting” the Great Law of Peace. The word “drafting” came from footnote 9. I’m not sure what the Harvard Law Review authors and editors thought “drafting” would mean in this context—wampum, perhaps, but translations of wampum weren’t available to the American founders. What were the Harvard Law Review people thinking in letting this stuff appear in their pages?

See supra note 66.

See Farrell, supra note 49 (quoting Ives Goddard, curator of Anthropology at the Smithsonian: “[T]he Great Law Documents … don’t date to nearly a hundred years after the Constitution. The possibility has to be considered that the influence went the other way.”); supra note 32 (noting significance of 1851 publication of Lewis Morgan’s treatise).

See Jensen, supra note 18.

Introduction , in E XILED IN THE L AND OF THE F REE : D EMOCRACY , I NDIAN N ATIONS , AND THE U.S. C ONSTITUTION 9 (Oren R. Lyons & Jon C. Mohawk eds., 1992).

See , e . g ., Charles Radlauer, The League of the Iroquois : From Constitution to Sovereignty , 13 S T . T HOMAS L. R EV . 341, 352 (2000) (ridiculing “Jensen’s insistence upon written documentation two centuries after the fact”). I plead guilty.

The rebuttal might be that no written record exists because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted to keep the Indian influence secret. Most of them wanted ratification to occur, of course, and the document was doomed if it was understood to have been derived from the Iroquois. But that hypothesis presupposes a conspiracy of silence of breathtaking scope. Besides, if the purported source of constitutional principles would have caused ratification problems, why wouldn’t the Anti-Federalists, some of whom were at the Convention, have noted this connection in their voluminous writings? If you’re looking for ways to defeat the Constitution, why wouldn’t you bring out the big guns—if the big guns exist? Historian Shannon sees the relationship between the founding documents and the Iroquois in a much more convincing way:

S HANNON , supra note 28, at 239.

F ELIX S. C OHEN , H ANDBOOK OF F EDERAL I NDIAN L AW (1941). Since the time of the founding, doctrine was plentiful—treaties with the tribes, what is now title 25 of the United States Code, and judicial decisions. Cohen created the field by pulling that material together while he was serving in the Office of the Solicitor in the Department of the Interior.

Felix S. Cohen, Americanizing the White Man , A M . S CHOLAR , Spring 1952, at 171, 17879, reprinted in T HE L EGAL C ONSCIENCE : S ELECTED P APERS OF F ELIX S. C OHEN , at 315, 317 (Lucy Kramer Cohen ed., 1970).

Cohen, supra note 75, at 178, reprinted in L EGAL C ONSCIENCE , supra note 75, at 316.

The Iroquois were particularly ferocious in war. See Jensen, supra note 18, at 299.

The influence thesis shouldn’t be taken seriously, in the pages of the Harvard Law Review or anywhere else, but that conclusion isn’t intended to denigrate American Indian nations. In fact, if one has the interests of those nations in mind, it’s risky to act as though a theory that is at best suspect and at worst nonsense is important to their status. American Indian policy doesn’t depend on the validity of an ahistorical thesis.

Almost thirty years ago, ethnographer Elizabeth Tooker noted that the influence thesis—under which white man’s law is treated, in its fundamentals, as equivalent to traditional tribal law—actually denies the distinctiveness of American Indians:

Tooker, supra note 20, at 327.

In seeking to emphasize the importance and distinctiveness of American Indian nations, proponents of the influence thesis may be doing exactly the opposite.

In any event, nothing is gained by endorsing the influence thesis, and what is lost is something we should all care about: the truth.

The body of this article vents about the influence thesis. For anyone interested, I want to make a substantive criticism of the Developments chapter from the Harvard Law Review —in particular, the recommendation that tribal governments be given primary responsibility for interpreting the Indian Civil Rights Act, even in habeas cases.

The second section of ICRA, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1302, is titled “Constitutional rights.” Subsection (a) provides that “[n]o Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall” engage in any of ten listed behaviors—generally a statutory application of most bill of rights provisions to American Indian tribes. The constitutional limitations would otherwise not be applicable.

Maybe other reasons were involved as well, but protecting individual rights was the stated motivation.

436 U.S. 49 (1978).

The Court in Santa Clara Pueblo merely held that Congress hadn’t made it explicit that federal courts should have jurisdiction over ICRA matters, except for habeas proceedings, where federal judicial review is provided for. See supra note 4. Without clear authorization, the Court said it wasn’t going to infer federal jurisdiction. It’s true that Congress wasn’t explicit, but it would have been easy, I think, to infer that Congress intended that result. What otherwise was the point of ICRA? (On the other hand, in the intervening 38 years, Congress hasn’t stepped in to reverse the effects of Santa Clara .)

The Developments chapter recognized that not all tribes have courts and suggests how that problem can be addressed for ICRA purposes. See Developments , at 1728.

Any discussion of ICRA’s merits must be informed by a fundamental principle: neither states’ rights nor tribal rights should trump individual rights.

Advisories | Goldlink | Goldmail | D2L | Safety | A-Z Index

Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University

• < Previous

Home > STUDENT-WORKS > ETDs > 119

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Off-campus ETSU users: To download "Campus Only" theses, please use the following link to log in to our proxy server with your ETSU username and password.

Non-ETSU users: Please talk to your librarian about requesting this thesis through interlibrary loan.

The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the "Great Debate".

Barton M. Edens , East Tennessee State University

Degree Name

MA (Master of Arts)

Date of Award

Committee chair or co-chairs.

Dale J. Schmitt

This thesis examines the arguments of the Great Debate over the Iroquois Influence Thesis. The author researches the history of the thesis origin and its historiography, plus historical facts, which contribute to the Iroquois Influence Thesis existence. Related statements by the Founding Fathers, an examination of the Cornell Conference on the issue, and points of contention debated by scholars are also conducted.

The author used on-line sources, books and scholarly articles fundamental to the Iroquois Influence Thesis to launch the study, then procured sources, documented therein, plus documents and letters to proceed. Findings show cause for the Iroquois Influence Thesis to exist; however, the author's conclusion is that the nature of much evidence is circumstantial, thus, facilitating to the debate.

The reader will learn novel details of U.S. Colonial History, and the political and sociological views of the Founding Fathers regarding Indian governments and customs.

Document Type

Thesis - restricted

Recommended Citation

Edens, Barton M., "The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the "Great Debate"." (2001). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 119. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/119

Copyright by the authors.

Since January 13, 2013

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Submission Guidelines
• Submit Research
• ETD Web Site
• Digital Scholarship Services

Sponsored by Charles C. Sherrod Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

The origins and growth of the Iroquois Confederacy

• The Iroquois Confederacy’s role in the French-British rivalry
• The Iroquois Confederacy during the American Revolution and beyond

Iroquois Confederacy

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Smithsonian - National Museum of the American Indian - Haudenosaunee Guide for Educators
• CRW Flags - Iroquois Confederacy
• The Canadian Encyclopedia - Haudenosaunee (Iroquois
• National Park Service - The Six Nations Confederacy During the American Revolution
• World History Encyclopedia - Origins of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy
• Table Of Contents

• What were the main tribes that formed the Iroquois Confederacy?
• How was the Iroquois Confederacy governed and what was the Great Law of Peace?
• How did the Iroquois Confederacy interact with European settlers and other Native American tribes?
• What impact did the Iroquois Confederacy have on early American democracy and the U.S. Constitution?
• How has the Iroquois Confederacy evolved and what is its status today?
• What was the origin story or legend behind the formation of the Iroquois Confederacy?
• How did the longhouse system reflect Iroquois social and political organization?
• What were the main economic activities and trade practices of the Iroquois Confederacy?
• What role did the Iroquois Confederacy play in the French and Indian War?
• How has Iroquois culture and traditions been preserved and practiced in modern times?

Iroquois Confederacy , confederation of five (later six) Indian tribes across upper New York state that during the 17th and 18th centuries played a strategic role in the struggle between the French and British for mastery of North America . The five original Iroquois nations were the Mohawk (self-name: Kanien’kehá:ka [“People of the Flint”]), Oneida (self-name: Onᐱyoteʔa∙ká [“People of the Standing Stone”]), Onondaga (self-name: Onoñda’gega’ [“People of the Hills”]), Cayuga (self-name: Gayogo̱hó:nǫ’ [“People of the Great Swamp”]), and Seneca (self-name: Onödowa’ga:’ [“People of the Great Hill”]). After the Tuscarora (self-name: Skarù∙ręʔ [“People of the Shirt”]) joined in 1722, the confederacy became known to the English as the Six Nations and was recognized as such at Albany , New York (1722). Often characterized as one of the world’s oldest participatory democracies , the confederacy has persisted into the 21st century.

The Peacemaker story of Iroquois tradition credits the formation of the confederacy, between 1570 and 1600, to Dekanawidah (the Peacemaker), born a Huron , who is said to have persuaded Hiawatha , an Onondaga living among Mohawks, to advance “peace, civil authority, righteousness, and the great law” as sanctions for confederation. Cemented mainly by their desire to stand together against invasion, the tribes united in a common council composed of clan and village chiefs; each tribe had one vote, and unanimity was required for decisions. Under the Great Law of Peace (Gayanesshagowa), the joint jurisdiction of 50 peace chiefs, known as sachems, or hodiyahnehsonh , embraced all civil affairs at the intertribal level.

The Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Confederacy differed from other American Indian confederacies in the northeastern woodlands primarily in being better organized, more consciously defined, and more effective. The Iroquois used elaborately ritualized systems for choosing leaders and making important decisions. They persuaded colonial governments to use these rituals in their joint negotiations, and they fostered a tradition of political sagacity based on ceremonial sanction rather than on the occasional outstanding individual leader. Because the league lacked administrative control, the nations did not always act in unison, but spectacular successes in warfare compensated for this and were possible because of security at home.

During the formative period of the confederacy about 1600, the Five Nations remained concentrated in what is now central and upper New York state, barely holding their own with the neighbouring Huron and Mohican (Mahican), who were supplied with guns through their trade with the Dutch. By 1628, however, the Mohawk had emerged from their secluded woodlands to defeat the Mohican and lay the Hudson River valley tribes and New England tribes under tribute for goods and wampum . The Mohawk traded beaver pelts to the English and Dutch in exchange for firearms, and the resulting depletion of local beaver populations drove the confederacy members to wage war against far-flung tribal enemies in order to procure more supplies of beaver. In the years from 1648 to 1656, the confederacy turned west and dispersed the Huron, Tionontati , Neutral , and Erie tribes. The Andaste succumbed to the confederacy in 1675, and then various eastern Siouan allies of the Andaste were attacked. By the 1750s most of the tribes of the Piedmont had been subdued, incorporated, or destroyed by the league.