General Amherst was recalled to London after the attacks of 1763 and was succeeded as commander in chief by General Thomas Gage, who organized a two-pronged campaign in the summer of 1764, one to reinforce Detroit and the other to march against the Ohio Indians near Fort Pitt. Colonel John Bradstreet led the expedition to Detroit. Though he lacked the authority to negotiate a treaty, he did so anyway; it included language that insisted that the Indians at Detroit acknowledge their subjection to the king of Great Britain. In the letter excerpted below, William Johnson explains to Gage that he believes the Detroit Indians did not understand the language they were agreeing to and that they never would have accepted a statement of subjection.
Dear Sir,
Altho the words of the late Treaty [negotiated by Bradstreet at Detroit] may at first appear extraordinary, yet I am not at a loss to Acc[oun]t for them, as I know it has been verry customary for many People to Insinuate that the Indians call themselves Subjects, altho I am thoroughly convinced they were never so called, nor would they approve of it. — tis true that when a Nation find themselves pushed, their Alliances broken, and themselves tired of a War, they are verry apt to say many civil things, and make any Submissions which are not agreable to their intentions, but are said meerly to please those with whom they transact Affairs as they know we cannot enforce the observance of them. but you may be assured that none of the Six Nations, Western Indians &ca. ever declared themselves to be Subjects, or will ever consider themselves in that light whilst they have any Men, or open Country to retire to, the very Idea of Subjection would fill them with horror. — Indeed I have been Just looking into the Indian Records, where I find in the Minutes of 1751 that those who made ye Entry Say, that Nine different Nations acknowledged themselves to be his Majestys Subjects, altho I sat at that Conference, made entrys of all the Transactions, in which there was not a Word mentioned, which could imply a Subjection, however, these matters (notwithstanding all I have from time to time said on that Subject) seem not to be well known at home, and therefore, it may prove of dangerous consequence to persuade them that the Indians have agree to things which (had they even assented to) is so repugnant to their Principles that the attempting to enforce it, must lay the foundation of greater Calamities than has yet been experienced in this Country, — it is necessary to observe that no Nation of Indians have any word which can express, or convey the Idea of Subjection, they often say, ‘we acknowledge the great King to be our Father, we hold him fast by the hand, and we shall do w[ha]t he desires’ many such like words of course, for which our People too readily adopt & insert a Word verry different in signification, and never intended by the Indians without explaining to them what is meant by Subjection….
Source: James Sullivan et al., eds., The Papers of Sir William Johnson, 14 vols. (Albany, 1921–1965), 11:394–96.
Evaluating the Evidence