Theresa R. Jach

History 6393 – Empire, War, and Revolution

Buzzanco

January 26, 2000

Bernard W. Sheehan’s Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian is an intellectual history of white attitudes toward native Americans and the impact those attitudes had on Jeffersonian era policy. Sheehan examines "the way in which certain articulate white men thought of the native peoples in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries…" (p. ix) These ideas, Sheehan claims, translated into Indian policy. The assimilation of Native Americans into white culture became a way for America to prove its validity to the rest of the world, and to itself. Unfortunately, "the white man’s sympathy was more deadly than his animosity." (p. 278)

The concept of environmentalism, the belief in the changeability of man, was especially influential in shaping Indian policy. The French author, the comte de Buffon, argued that some flaw in the North American continent made it impossible for the new nation to prosper. He pointed to the Indian as proof that this flawed environment produced savages. Buffon’s accusations that the very environment of the New World caused a decline in all species, including man, elicited a strong response from Jefferson, who answered the charges in his Notes on Virginia. The desire to disprove Buffon led Jefferson and others to exploit the image of the "Noble Savage." Not only was the Indian capable of being civilized, but by turning the native into a white man, the Americans could prove their land’s superiority.

Philanthropists attempted a variety of ways to ‘civilize’ the Indians. Missionaries tried to convert natives to Christianity. Indian children were educated in white ways. In order for the noble Indians to fit into the American world, they must be assimilated and acculturated. They needed to lose their tribal ways, including communal ownership of property, and Indians had to become farmers, in the tradition of the yeoman.

According to Sheehan, the motives of the philanthropists were benevolent, if naive. The failure of Indian policy cannot be blamed on intentions. Sheehan writes that the failure lay in the mindset of the philanthropists. Their belief in the idea of the Noble Savage prevented the Indian from living up to white expectations. The Indian, according to Sheehan, could not assimilate into white culture, as they were reluctant to give up tribal ways. Sheehan then says that the whites would not have accepted the Indian, even if he did adopt white habits. (p. 241)

Sheehan goes further to explain Indian removal policy as another step in the good-intentioned, philanthropic movement to civilize the Indians for their own good. While not precipitated by philanthropists, removal fit nicely into their framework. As it became apparent that assimilation was not a quick and easy process, removal was a way to buy the Indian time to change. Separated from negative influences, and isolated on reservations, the Indian could spend more time learning how to be white. This delayed admitting the defeat of assimilation.

Sheehan goes too far in his argument about the pure motives of the philanthropists. For example, he says that the philanthropists wanted Indians to get rid of excess land (i.e. uncultivated land). They claimed that not "using" the land was a sign of savagery. (p. 167) He glosses over the desire of whites to get Indian land. It is difficult to accept a purely benevolent motive for stealing land from Indians for white man’s use. Sheehan separates the desires of the philanthropists from the motives of the government. Yet, in many places he lumps them all together. He uses ‘Jefferson,’ ‘Jeffersonian,’ and ‘Jeffersonian era’ seemingly interchangeably. In identifying Jefferson as a philanthropist, Sheehan relies heavily on Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia. (p. 75) It seems more likely that Jefferson was more concerned with refuting the insulting charges of the comte de Buffon than with any genuine respect for the Indian. The Indian as a Noble Savage served the purpose of showing the positive influence of the North American continent.

Sheehan does admit that philanthropy became increasingly manipulative as time went on, and that "deception became characteristic of philanthropy."(p. 148, 170) The philanthropists apparently are to be forgiven for wanting to civilize the Indian, even though the results were disastrous. Since they meant well, that excuses their destruction of Indian culture.

Blacks are only mentioned twice, and briefly. (p. 36-37, 101) Racism only earns a footnote. (p. 43) A comparative look at white attitudes toward blacks and Indians could have illuminated Sheehan’s story. For example, would the image of the noble savage have held up if Indian labor had been easily exploited? By ignoring economic motivation in favor of ideas, Sheehan glosses over these critical issues.

Although Sheehan provides a thorough look at the attitudes of whites about Indians, he is less successful in proving these attitudes had a direct impact on Indian policy. It is one thing to say the Indian is a ‘Noble Savage’ when it suits a broader purpose. It is quite another to actually incorporate the Indian into white society. To use the need for more time to "civilize" as an excuse to forcibly remove the Indians from their land hardly seems like something even the philanthropists believed. Just like today, politicians are adept at arguing that harmful policies are really for the recipient’s/victim’s own good. In trying to look at white men’s intellectual theories about Indians, Sheehan misses the broader motives of land, money, and power.

Sheehan tries to show a different side to the tragic story of America’s Indian policy. By focusing on the white concept of the Indian, he tries to give an alternative to the manipulative, racist, greedy story that is so familiar. Sheehan does succeed in showing the thought and ideals of certain philanthropists. He is less successful in proving their importance. The result is the same -- failure. Sheehan seems to feel that since the Indian survived this onslaught of humanitarianism that somehow that very humanitarianism was partly responsible for that survival. (p. 276) This view gives the Indian no agency in his own story.