The Trail Of Tears

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Warfare is the third main cause which led to the population decline of Native Americans. This section will concentrate on warfare between the Natives and the white population, therefore it will not discuss inter-tribal warfare, nor the American independence or civil wars. Jaimes claims, that "[o]nce the United States had established and consolidated itself to the point where it could tip the balance of military power to its own advantage, it began a 100 year series of armed conflicts popularly known as the Indian Wars." (91) In light of this, the last section will discuss those instances of war which were important and pivotal in the Native and white relations. The reasons for warfare, as well as Native American war strategies will also be examined.

As it has already been mentioned, the population number of pre-contact Native Americans is still under debate. Hence, the loss of Native American lives during warfare is difficult to establish. We do, however, have an estimate of the Native American population living within the territory of the continental United States at the time the Founding Fathers took over. Research puts the population numbers between 1.5 and 1.8 million (Jaimes 37). It has been estimated that since 1775, more than 8,500 Indians have been killed in individual affairs with whites (Jaimes 35). Jaimes further states that under the government of the United States, there had been more than 40 Indian wars which had resulted in the death of about 30,000 Indians (35). If we take into consideration the fact that of the total Native American population (which is estimated at anywhere between 900,000 and 18 million) only 30,000 plus an additional 8,500 died, it seems quite low compared to the victims of epidemic diseases and genocide. Let us establish pre-contact Native population at 10 million for the purpose of estimating the percentage of population loss from warfare. The answer comes to 0,0003 percent, if we were to estimate pre-contact population at the lowest level; at 900,000 then we would still only end up with 0,033 percent of the population. Compared to the damage done by epidemic diseases and genocide, warfare as the cause of population decline seems miniscule. However, it is important to note that there is most probably a large difference between the actual number of Indians killed and the number of deaths documented. The reason for this is that Native Americans concealed wherever possible their actual losses (Jaimes 35), and it is safe to presume that only rough estimates of battle victims were precisely drawn up. Therefore, warfare as a cause of population decline should not be discredited.

According to Axelrod, history records ‘Indian Warfare’ as conflict between

white settlers and Native Americans (16). However, the terms ‘Indian Warfare’ or

‘Indian Wars’ are challenged by the Creek/Cherokee scholar Ward Churchill who

writes that "[t]he term is revealing in itself. There is no historical record of any war

between [Indian nations] and the United States which was initiated by the Indians.

Each known outbreak of open warfare was predicated upon documentable invasion of

defined (or definable) Indian lands by U.S. citizenry. The defensive nature of Indian participation in these wars is thus clear. Logically, they should thus be termed ‘settler's wars’ or, more accurately, ‘wars of conquest.’"(Jaimes 9) There is much truth in Churchill’s statement. Already by the seventeenth century, the immigrants arriving in America had the expressed intention of colonizing the land. Brady states that the war with Indians came down to the question of owning the territory (4). Hence, the Native Americans soon became caught up in the middle of imperial wars waged between several European kingdoms on the American continent. The unsatisfiable appetite for Indian land made war between the two peoples difficult to avoid (Starkey 14). Also, Indians had no conception of the term nation, therefore cultural conflicts also contributed to the inevitability of war (Barnes 19). Indians had no idea of a common ‘continent-wide ethnicity’ until the Europeans came and grouped them under a common name, as Indians (Birchfield 1047).

As early as the colonial period, the Europeans began to regard Indians as obstacles that must be dealt with in whatever means possible, in order for them to satisfy their unending yearning for land and the natural resources within it (Smith 34). In the colonial period, before the birth of the United States, Indians had played important and influential roles in the European competition for hegemony. As the United States became a sovereign nation, the Native Peoples still continued to demonstrate this power (Barnes 19). When George Washington became the first President of the US, he initiated an Indian assimilation policy, expecting complete assimilation to take place fifty years later. When it became obvious that this could not be achieved, the American policy changed and became a policy "to push Indians aside, either peacefully or by force, to facilitate westward expansion." (Oswalt 35) As Americans expanded more westward and the territory of the United States grew with each additional state, the problem of Native Americans heightened. The Americans signed treaty after treaty with the Natives, promising them lands where they could re-establish themselves and exist as a sovereign nation. However, it is a common truth that the United States had violated every single one of its treaties with the Indians (Jennings 374). Some of these treaties included the Treaty of Greenville in 1795 [1] and the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868 [2] . These broken treaties and the continued seizure of Indian lands necessitated a reaction from the Natives, if they wished to defy the Americans and preserve their lands and ways of life. We may conclude that the Native American participation in warfare was indeed of defensive nature.

War tactics, strategies, and customs of the Native Americans and their white counterparts differed immensely. Just as their cultures, religions, and values differed from each others’, the way in which they went to war and the weapons they used was very different as well. When the colonists first arrived, the Indians fought with bows and arrows, tomahawks, knives and war clubs. The European settlers, of course brought with them firearms, which the Indian warriors had quickly adopted. By the end of the seventeenth century, Indians had switched to firearms as their principle weapons (Starkey 21). This did not mean that they neglected the bow, however. The bow kept its value as a ‘stealth weapon’ but firearms were used in combat. With the conversion from bow and arrow to firepower the Indians established a dependency upon white traders for arms and ammunition (Starkey 22). Even though Indians became very good gunsmiths and marksmen, gunpowder was a product that the Indians could not manufacture. Chet claims that "the failure to provide arms and ammunition could very well mean the loss of an Indian ally, thus creating a more serious threat." (143) Chet continues, however, that the benefit of having Native Indian allies was not so that they could fight alongside them, but they played the role of the peaceful neighbours and indispensable scouts (144). Starkey also confirms that "the role of the Indians became marginal to the outcome of the major conflicts." (Starkey 11)

The matchlock musket with a bayonet was one of the principle weapons being used in Europe in the 16th century; however, the matchlock musket was useless in damp, rainy, windy weather and the size and weight of the musket were not suited to American terrain and marching troops. The flintlock was adapted over the matchlock musket because of its automatic ignition and its shorter and simpler loading procedure. It was also quicker, lighter, and more accurate (Chet 151). During King Philip’s War, also called the First Indian War, which lasted from 1675 to 1678, the Native Americans were already fully equipped with modern flintlock firearms (Starkey 71). By the end of the nineteenth century, rifles had superseded muskets. Rifles were shoulder firearms which had greater accuracy and range. By the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876, both the Americans and the Native Indians were equipped with Winchester rifles which allowed the rifleman to fire a number of shots before having to reload. To the white immigrants the use of muskets and rifles came naturally. To the Natives however, firearms were unknown objects of destruction. The Natives, called firearms ‘fire sticks’ which probably derived from the fact that the flint made a spark when it ignited the charge. The Indians were drawn to these powerful weapons and adapted to them rather quickly (Warpaths to Peace Pipes).

Both white and Indian groups had used more or less the same weapons by the mid seventeenth century, however, their battle tactics remained distinctively different. Native Americans were "masters of the secret skulking war: the raid, the ambush, and the retreat. Indian skulking tactics [included] concealment and surprise, moving fire, envelopment and, when the enemy’s ranks were broken, hand-to-hand combat." (Starkey 167) A heroic death during battle was not something valued in the Native American culture, as it was held in high esteem in European cultures. Natives saw fighting to death as a waste of life. The moment a warrior was defeated, he ceased fighting and surrendered his weapon, if the whole group was defeated, they put down their arms and awaited capture (Mann 6). Perhaps the most infamous Indian practice was the scalping of their opponents. Scalps were seen as the physical rewards of a warrior’s bravery. Starkey claims that even though scalping was seen as something very savage and brutal, it was not as barbaric a practice as beheading and other atrocities committed by both Indians and Europeans. Also, the tradition of taking scalps was over exaggerated, since not all tribes practiced this phenomenon (30).

Native Americans avoided direct assault and prolonged siege warfare; this was the European and American tactic. Indians were at a disadvantage when they were sometimes forced to adapt these white war strategies. (Starkey 23) On the other hand, "Indians were able to frustrate and overwhelm European forces, demonstrating to them that warfare in America dictated a reliance on Indian tactics." (Chet 143) Indeed European success occurred many times when Native American war tactics were administered, instead of the ‘machine-like’ linear tactics of their troops (Chet 144). Starkey remarks that the "adaptation may have been the most 'revolutionary' military development in North America." (24) In the period between 1675 and 1815 there was minimal change in weapons, technology, or tactics during Indian and white warfare (Starkey 167).

So why was it that although Native American warfare tactics and strategies were successful, and their weapons were of the same effectiveness as the white immigrants that they still came out as the losing party? Starkey claims that in general Indian societies did not have the material resources for prolonged war. Moreover, the Native Americans were divided, not just politically but physically as well. This crippled their resistance to European conquest as well as American expansion (15). The sheer number of immigrants arriving in America, and the continuously growing, unified American armies were too overwhelming for the Native Americans who were dwindling in population as well as already weakened by forced relocations and diseases.

4.1 The Battle of Wabash

Having discussed some of the technical details of Native American and white warfare, the following section will be dedicated to two instances of warfare between the two peoples. The first will be the Battle of Wabash, also known as St. Claire’s defeat in 1791, detailing a Native American war victory, while the second instance will be the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890.

The precedent of the Battle of Wabash may be traced back to the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the American Revolutionary War. United States sovereignty was recognized of all the land east of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes. The Treaty of Paris was signed which established United Sates boundaries, without giving much regard to the land claims of the Native Americans living in the said regions. The Indian tribes of the Northwest, however, refused to recognize American claims to the area northwest of the Ohio River (Jones 3-5). In the Revolutionary War American Indian tribes were mostly allied with the British, in order to cease American territorial expansion, therefore after the defeat of the British, these Native tribes were treated as a defeated power (Birchfield 94-96). The United States regarded the Indians of the Northwest "as a conquered people who had forfeited their civil rights."(Axelrod 164) However, already large pieces of land were being sold to private companies for settlement or exploitation, right from under the feet of the Native Americans (Tucker 55). Axelrod claims that the federal government did try to attempt coordinating white settlement , but that the prices offered for the Indian lands were relatively low (164). Tucker writes that the first serious attempt of the American government to establish jurisdiction in the territory north of the Ohio river was General Josiah Harmar’s campaign in October 1790 (55). This campaign included a series of battles over three days that were all overwhelming victories for the Native Americans (Feng). The defeat established Little Turtle, chief of the Miami, a war hero. President George Washington, unsatisfied with the defeat ordered General Arthur St. Clair to assemble a new expedition. The army numbered some 2,000 soldiers of whom only 350 were militia, and the rest were regulars (Tucker 58). On November 4 at dawn, St .Clair’s forces were camped near the Wabash river, at present-day Fort Recovery, Ohio. Surrounding the unaware soldiers was an Indian force consisting of 1,000 Indians led by Little Turtle and Blue Jacket. The warriors attacked from three directions taking St. Clair’s forces by surprise. The battle lasted three hours, during this time over 500 men fled, 623 officers died, and 271 soldiers were wounded. As opposed to this the Indians lost 21 warriors and 40 of them were wounded (Axelrod 166). Starkey claims that the Battle of Wabash was one of the most severe defeats at the hand of Indians in the history of the United States (146). Tucker affirms this view stating that "St. Claire’s defeat remains one of the most ignominious routs in American military history." (59) Likewise Axelrod comments that "[i]n proportion to the number of men fielded that day, St. Clair's defeat stands as the worst loss the U.S. Army has ever suffered (166).

4.2 The Battle of Wounded Knee

The second incident that will be discussed in the following pages is the Battle of Wounded Knee which took place in 1890. The event of Wounded Knee is an important landmark in the history of Native American and American relations, since it marks the end of an era called the ‘Indian Wars.’ The Battle of Wounded Knee seems to imply the culmination of a hundred years of war, strife, despair, and hardship, of the Native American population. As Jennings remarks, "[b]y coincidence, the year of Wounded Knee was also the year when the Superintendent of the U.S. Census celebrated the end of the Frontier, defined as a line between Indians and homesteaders — a line that Frederick Jackson Turner converted into "the meeting point between savagery and civilization." (380) The example of the Battle of Wounded Knee is also on the borderline of two factors leading to the decimation of Native American population; genocide and warfare, however, it is discussed in detail in this section since, as stated before, it represents an important landmark in Native and white relations, and brings an end to the era of the ‘Indian Wars’.

The battle occurred on December 29, 1890, but the events leading up to Wounded Knee began much earlier with the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868 (Reilly 251). The treaty created a reservation for the Sioux which encompassed the present day state of South Dakota west of the Missouri river (Reilly 252). It soon became apparent, however, that the treaty would not be kept. In 1874 General George A. Custer invaded the Black Hills (the territory of the Sioux) where gold was discovered (Gray 123). The ensuing years were distressing for the Sioux since they had to surrender large portions of the land promised to them in the Laramie Treaty (Reilly 253). The Sioux were in need of hope, and this hope came in the form of a Paiute Indian, Wovoka, who had a vision, "[h]e was told the old world would be destroyed and replaced by a fresh one. The dead would live again and everyone would be young and happy. The buffalo would return and the white man would disappear. All the Indians had to do was to perform the dance of the souls departed — the ghost dance." (Reilly 254) It was not only the appearance of this new religion, the Ghost Dance, which was a prelude to Wounded Knee, but the arrest and murder of Sitting Bull, Chief of the Sioux was another such event. During the arrest of Sitting Bull a skirmish erupted, and when it was all over, Sitting Bull, and several other tribesmen lay dead (Reilly 261). The remainder of Sitting Bull’s followers, including 120 men and 230 women and children fled, but were intercepted by the 7th Cavalry who escorted them to a Sioux camp near the Wounded Knee river (Reilly 262). On the morning of December 29, preparations were being made to disarm the Sioux. The Indians produced only an assortment of broken and outdated weapons so the command was given to search the camp and to gather up all the remaining weapons (Mooney 868). By this time the 7th Cavalry Regiment had already surrounded the encampment with 470 soldiers and four Hotchkiss artillery pieces on a nearby hill (Reilly 263). During the collection of the weapons a shot was fired, which triggered further gunfire from the 470 soldiers as well as the Hotchkiss guns. While, only 31 American soldiers were killed (Mooney 881), a total of 300 Indians, twice the number the military acknowledges, were killed (Reilly 266). The vast majority of those killed were women and children, and it has been admitted "that women and children were slaughtered for hours after the initial gunfire exchange and many miles away from the action." (Reilly 266) Troops were sent out to the battlefield only three days after the massacre because of a blizzard. The sight was distressing, "[t]he bodies of the slaughtered men, women, and children were found lying about under the snow, frozen stiff and covered with blood." (Mooney 876)

In this section the effects of warfare on the Native Americans has been discussed. Warfare had not affected the population numbers of the Native Americans as drastically as the causes of epidemic disease and genocide, however, it is predicted by researchers that there are probably more victims of warfare than we are led to believe on account of present documentation. Native American war tactics and strategies have been found to be very different from those of the white immigrants. Whereas the white settlers and later the American armies favored a ‘machine-like’ linear battle plan, and favored prolonged wars and sieges, the Indians on the other hand were the masters of the skulking wars and favored ambushes, raids, and quick retreats. The Native Americans also adapted to the use of firearms, but by doing so became dependant on trading ammunition, gunpowder and firearms. Although the Native American tactics proved to be efficient, in the end the Americans could not be held up.

5. Native Americans Today

From following pages of this paper, it has been established that the Native American People’s past has been filled with hardships. They have had to witness the destruction of their homes, the confiscation of rightfully owned lands, the decimation of their populations through epidemic diseases, genocide, and warfare, and they have been forced to submissively watch the familiar world around them disappear. In the following few paragraphs the present-day status of the Native Americans will be briefly discussed. By the end of the nineteenth century the practice of allotment [3] towards Indian lands was standard. In 1890, when the federal government declared the period of 'Indian Wars' to be officially over, it estimated that approximately 248,253 Native Indians remained in the territory of the United States (Jaimes 36).By 1900 the situation became critical; "In 1900, New Hampshire, for example, possessed a total Indian population of 22. Delaware could show only nine. Alabama had 177; Arkansas, 66; Connecticut, 153; Georgia, 19; Illinois, 16; Kentucky, 102; Massachusetts, 587; Ohio, 42; Rhode Island, 35; South Carolina, 121; Tennessee, 108; Texas, 470; and West Virginia, 12. There were five living Indians in New Jersey, and only three in Maryland." (Jaimes 37) In 1898 the Curtis Act abolished all tribal laws and courts, and commissioned that all people living in Indian Territory were under US authority (French 24-25). However, by the 1930’s the policy of allotment and the policy towards Native Americans in general had undergone a change. The Wheeler-Howard Act of 1934 became the Act which initiated the current reservation system (French 25). Jaimes writes, that by 1930 there was a surge in the Native American population, from the before mentioned 248,253 in 1890 to 333,397 in 1930. The Native American population has grown every decade since (37). The chart below taken from Young, shows the population rise of Native Americans living in Canadian and United States territory (Young 30):

Census Year

Canada

United States

1900/ 1901

127,941

267,000

1910/ 1911

106,000

291,000

1920/ 1921

114,000

271,000

1930/ 1931

129,000

362,000

1940/ 1941

161,000

366,000

1950/ 1951

166,000

379,000

1960/ 1961

220,000

552,000

1970/ 1971

313,000

827,000

1980/ 1981

492,000

1,423,000

As can be seen the Native American population has been increasing both in Canada and the United States. The U.S. Census categorizes American Indians based on self-identification (Young 29).

According to the 1980 Census, there were about 1.4 million Native Americans in the United States. This equals to only 0.6 percent of the total population of the country. Young lists the ten largest reservations, which account for almost 50 percent of the population of all reservation Indians: "[T]he Navajo reservation with 105,000 people…; the Pine Ridge, South Dakota, reservation, with 12,000; various reservations in Arizona with populations in the 6,000-7,000 range (Gila River, Papago, Fort Apache, Hopi, and San Carlos); and other reservations also with 6,000-7,000 population each (Zuni, New Mexico, Rosebud, South Dakota, Blackfeet, Montana)." (Young 16)

The BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) which was established in 1824, today provides services to, and is responsible for over 556 American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives which make up 1.9 million people (Indian Affairs). In the present, as Kalt and Cornell state, many Indian reservations are beginning to resemble ‘enterprise zones.’ Most reservations function as independent state governments; they are free of economic, environmental, and taxation regulations (124). They are termed ‘nations within a nation.’ (Kalt and Cornell 121) Kalt and Cornell also claim that throughout the history of the United States, American Indian reservations have served as an instrument facilitating the practice of separating Indians from non-Indian society (127). Yet, according to French, even by the end of the 20th century, American Indians are trapped in poverty. French claims that 16 percent of reservation homes lack electricity, 21 percent lack an indoor toilet and 56 percent do not have a telephone Unemployment rates on reservations are many times higher than fifty percent, and the jobs that are available are government funded offices (French 31). "Along with the lack of economic opportunity for individuals come accentuated socioeconomic problems of crime, familial instability, alcoholism, mental illness, and so forth." (Kalt and Cornell 126)

Regarding mortality rates and susceptibility of Native Americans towards diseases, although there have been improvements in general health care, Native Americans are generally still at higher risks than non-Natives (Young 56). "[I]nfectious diseases, while greatly controlled, have by no means disappeared. Native Americans are still exposed to high risks for such diseases as meningitis, hepatitis, pneumonia, and sexually transmitted diseases." (Young 216) Alcohol consumption is also a large health concern regarding present-day Native Americans. According to 1970 US crime data, alcohol related offenses were 22 times higher among Natives than whites in urban areas (Young 202). Mortality of suicide and homicide among Native Americans is universally excessive compared to non-Native populations (Young 189).

According to French the present-day American Indians can be classified into three categories: traditional Indians, middle class Indians, and marginal Indians (39). Traditional Indians are otherwise known as full-bloods or real Indians and they make up twenty percent of the total Native American population. They can be described as conservative Indians who can speak their native language and are familiar and practice surviving tribal customs. The middle class Indian category is smaller than the traditional Indians. This group contributes to the U.S. norms and is therefore most favored by the American dominant society. Although, the middle class members are the ones who will most likely hold positions which were introduced in order to serve as mediators between Natives and non-Natives, these Indians are regarded with the least amount of respect by their Indian compatriots. Marginal Indians account for the majority of Native Americans. These Indians are of Indian descent but they do not speak their native language, nor do they practice their traditional customs. "Many marginal Indians suffer the dilemma of looking Indian and wanting to be Indian but do not know their traditional cultural ways or how to learn their heritage--a phenomenon that attests to the success of relocation and other forms of cultural genocide." (French 39-40)

Today American Indians occupy approximately 2.5 percent of their original lands (Jaimes 245), and although they are endowed with much political and economic freedom, they are still the most impoverished minority in the United States (Kalt and Cornell 121). As mentioned above their current population numbers today are 1.9 million, which is an improvement, compared to the very low figures of 1890 which accounted for a little over 248,000. There has been a continual recovery in their numbers from 1890, however Native Americans today are still faced with problems of diseases, alcohol consumption, and poverty, and most Natives are still unable to live financially independently from the United States government. Also, many Native Indians still face a problem regarding their identity and face a dilemma when confronted with the question of assimilation. In conclusion, the ‘Native American problem’ is far from resolved.

6. Conclusion

This paper has discussed the three main causes of Native American population decline throughout the development of the United States ranging from the colonial era to the end of the nineteenth century. In order to determine the degree of population decline, the population of pre-contact Native Americans was needed. However, at the present there is still much controversy and disagreement regarding the numbers of Native Americans living north of the Rio Grande in Pre-Columbine times. The estimates range from 900,000 up to 18 million. In the pages following, first contact with Native Americans was briefly discussed, as well as Indian and white relations. These two topics were important to understand since they later influenced the American attitude towards the perception of the Indians. Although, some instances of first contact may have given hope towards establishing a more positive future, the relations between the Indians and the Americans have been strained to the present day. Spencer in his book declares that "[t]he North American Indian, from the days of Columbus to the present, has been the butt of speculation, he has been misunderstood and misrepresented, he has been simultaneously ill-treated and exploited…He has been the object of charity while being robbed of his own heritage." (xv)

The main body of the paper is pre-occupied with discussing the three main causes for the decline of the Native American population, which are epidemic disease, genocide, and warfare. Epidemic disease accounted for the decline of anywhere from 85 to 90 percent of the total Native American population north of the Rio Grande. At first, it is explained that the reason for the lag between Spanish America and North America was the population density as well as a shorter voyage over the Atlantic and the introduction of infected children to the American colonies. The list of diseases that have been agreed upon as those brought from Europe, was included in the paper. It has been found that Native Americans were more susceptible to the diseases brought over from Europe. The main reason for this is that these diseases were virgin soil diseases which meant that the Native American population had never encountered them earlier, and therefore did not acquire immunity. Smallpox, the cholera outbreak and the tuberculosis epidemic are mentioned in more detail. Tuberculosis as opposed to cholera, was not a virgin epidemic disease since it had been present in pre-contact North America. The higher TB death rates among Indians can be associated with a more severe viral strain and possible genetic differences, although there is not enough evidence to prove it. Alcohol is also mentioned and it is claimed that even though it does not constitute an epidemic, it has had devastating effects on the health of Native Americans. In this section two pieces of research are mentioned which seem to suggest that genetic differences make Native Americans more prone to alcoholism, although it is still much debated.

Genocide is also discussed in detail as the second cause of Native American population decline. The origins of the term genocide and the definition is included as well. It was coined by Raphael Lemkin and genocide defined as the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, political, or cultural group. It is questioned as to what acts are considered genocidal. The paper mentions a few examples including forced relocations, deliberately infecting the Native peoples with diseases, or killing their source of food. External factors and internal traits of genocide are also mentioned to provide an overall picture. Genocide may be a source of formal control, it may be committed in order to acquire economic gain, or in order to punish deviant behavior. Lack of mobility, cultural differences, relational distance, lack of functional interdependency, and inequality are factors that all contribute to the presence of genocidal crimes. Many examples are mentioned. The Trail of Tears which was the removal of the Cherokee nation in 1838 following the Indian Removal Act is examined in more detail. It is concluded that the Trail of Tears was indeed an act of genocide because during the different stages of the removals, due to neglect and ignorance the population of the Cherokee tribe had been devastated.

The third and final cause contributing to the decline of Native Americans is warfare. Although the documented evidence regarding the number of Indians victims as a cause of warfare, is low, we have reason to believe that there were many more Indians killed. The paper discusses the main differences between the Native American style of war and the white American style of war. The Americans favored prolonged, siege-like wars while the Indians were masters of so-called skulking wars which included ambush, raid, and retreat. Native Americans quickly adapted to the use of muskets and rifles, however, this produced a dependency on white traders for weapons and ammunition. The Native Americans were not able to defeat the Americans because they were never unified on their fight against the colonizing forces, and the sheer number of white immigrants became overpowering. The Battle of Wabash in 1791 and the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 are discussed in more detail. Although Wounded Knee victims can be classified as being victims of both genocide and warfare, Wounded Knee is an important landmark in the history of Native American and American relations, since it marks the end of an era called the ‘Indian Wars.’ Starkey claims that "[t]he prevailing view is that waves of European epidemic diseases devastated Indian communities to the extent that European soldiers engaged in something of a mopping-up action." (7)

To conclude, the causes of Native American decline in population was brought about by the arrival of the European colonizers. The number of Native American victims of these causes rose in accordance with the continuous growth of the immigrant population and the development of the United States. As the new nation was growing in size, the Native American population was dropping. Instances of epidemic diseases, genocide, and warfare multiplied with the birth and development of the United States. While the United States as a country flourished, the Native Americans as a race declined.