Mistranslations and Misinformation: Diplomacy on the Maine Frontier, 1725 to 1755

• Main Author: Ghere, David L.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: eScholarship, University of California 1984
• Subjects: treaties; American Indian rights; Francis Jennings; misleading rhetoric; Indian-white relations; Indian; Jennings; abenaki
• Online Access: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7k0901r4

The texts of treaties and the journals of treaty negotiations are major sources both for historians and for attorneys engaged in present-day litigation of American Indian rights and land claims. These sources are available in a field largely devoid of documentary evidence on the thoughts and motivations of American Indians. Yet, as Francis Jennings has shown, these documents must be evaluated very critically because white men’s “. . . pens could be as forked as [their] tongues.” Since few Indians could actually read a treaty, Jennings argues that the question to ask is not what a treaty text said but what the white interpreter told the Indians it said. In addition, white treaty commissioners frequently used misleading rhetoric or ignored issues entirely in order to postpone confrontations until such time as their governments chose to enforce a treaty. Diplomatic relations between the English and the Abenaki Indians on the Maine frontier prior to the Seven Years War (French and Indian War) offer a fascinating illustration of these deceptive practices and their effects on Indian-white relations. The foundation of Anglo-Abenaki diplomacy during this period was Dummer’s Treaty, negotiated at three conferences from 1725 to 1727. This agreement was renewed at every subsequent conference during the next three decades and was consistently cited and praised by both the Abenakis and the English as the basis of their relationship. The Abenakis’ favorable, even reverent, attitude toward the treaty contrasts with their repeated refusal to honor their promises as recorded in its text. Their failure to meet its terms contributed to the image of “Barbarous and Perfidious” Indians that was widespread among colonial leaders and was adopted later by historians.