The U.S. Forest Service has proposed renaming Wayne National Forest, a 240,000-acre forest in southeast Ohio. It has selected the name Buckeye National Forest. (Ohio is the Buckeye State.)
The forest honors Anthony Wayne, an important general in the American Revolution. But “Mad” Anthony (whose label was given for disputed reasons) also was a key figure in the Northwest Indian War, ousting Native Americans from much of Ohio. Understandably, American Indian tribes are encouraging the name change.
I have been opposed to the removal of statues for the sake of “woke” ideology. I’m also doubtful about renaming southern forts, even though they were named for mediocre Confederate generals in order to perpetuate Jim Crow (see this post). And I think renaming college buildings is mostly silly. Which North Carolina State college student wonders about the namesake of Daniels Hall—now labeled 111 Lampe Drive?
But let’s think about the Anthony Wayne National Forest.
The Daily Beast asked a member of the American Indian Movement about the issue. John Washco replied (the brackets are the Beast’s):
“[Taking away Anthony Wayne’s name is] not erasing history at all. . . . [Keeping his name] would show either a lack of compassion or ignorance … of not knowing the true history. People that feel that way only want to accept a small portion of the history.”
At first this seemed a cheeky way to mislead. In my view, erasing Anthony Wayne’s name is erasing history. But, on the other hand, much of American Indians’ history has already been erased. What should we do about that?
American Indians in Traditional History
Whenever I want to know what “traditional” (pre-woke) history textbooks say, I go back to a standard American history text, first written in 1930 by Samuel Eliot Morrison and Henry Steele Commager (two supporters of the New Deal, by the way). I own a copy of the 1980 edition.[1]
Leafing through it awhile back, I noticed that American Indians were mentioned a lot more than I would have expected—especially in the first volume, which ended with Reconstruction. In other words, these mentions were made well before the more famous western Indian wars came up.
That suggested to me that American Indians were involved in more historical events, and earlier, than I had thought. I checked the index of Vol. I. The subject “Civil War” has 18 lines devoted to it. “Democratic Party” has 28 lines devoted to it. “Indians” has 53 lines. Thus, there are many references.
Yet these references are often sidelines or just part of what are (at least in the eyes of the authors) larger stories. Anthony Wayne’s expulsion of Indians is an example.
Mad Anthony Wayne’s Battle
The Northwest Territory was a large area extending over more than five modern-day states, from Ohio to a piece of Minnesota. The British had formally ceded it to the United States in the 1783 Treaty of Paris following the American Revolution. But the area contained numerous Indian tribes, the fur trade was valuable, and the British in Canada did not want to give it up. Nor did the Indians. The British and the Native Americans worked together, for awhile.
So Anthony Wayne was, in a way, fighting both Indians and the British in 1794. After beating off an attack by indigenous tribes, Wayne built a fort in the midst of an Indian homeland. Morison et al. describe it as “one continuous village with its log cabins, fruit trees, and fields of rustling corn extending to the forest edge” near what is now Greenville, Ohio. (So much for the fiction that Native Americans didn’t want to be farmers.)[2]
From that fort, in the “Battle of the Fallen Timbers,” Wayne defeated the Indian coalition. It was a decisive victory.
A year later, Wayne brought remaining Indian leaders and warriors together for a “peace conference.” He plied them with drink and persuaded them to sign a treaty giving up large segments of the Northwest Territory. In return, they received annuities, say Morison et al., worth about $10,000. [3] Yet within a decade, ”the Treaty of Greenville” [was] a mere scrap of paper,” they add.
While the dramatic (and treacherous) story takes up more than two pages of the textbook, it is encased in a “bigger” international story. That one is about the overall conflict with Great Britain—including trade issues; an international treaty negotiated by John Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and the changing nature of the political parties in the United States. The Indians quickly disappear from the picture.
How to Cope with Mad Anthony Wayne
Sadly, Native Americans’ experiences have never fit well into the way we think about American history—whether in 1890, in 1980, or probably even now.[4] Although the rhetoric of “manifest destiny” has been toned down, the narrative of American history has long been dominated by the westward extension of the frontier at the expense of Native Americans.
So back to the Wayne National Forest. Canceling people we no longer admire is not the way to address their place in history. But we need to think of those who were already canceled.
The non-woke (like me) often say the answer is not less speech but more. This statement stems from one by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1927. He defended free speech by saying, “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”[5]
Today we have time for “more speech, not enforced silence.” We can tell what was wrong with Anthony Wayne’s actions and what happened to those he overcame. Erasing him in favor of ”Buckeye National Forest” would not add much to history. Instead, let’s say more about his victims.
The U.S. Forest Service image of Wayne National Forest is by Kyle Brooks and in the public domain.
Notes (Comments after Notes)
[1] Samuel Eliot Morison, Henry Steele Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg, The Growth of the American Republic, Vols. I and II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
[2] Morison et al., 306.
[3] Morison et al., 307. Other sources offer variations on this amount.
[4] In 1893 Frederick Jackson Turner published his influential paper “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.”
[5] His was a concurring opinion in Whitney v. California. See James R. Belpedio, “Whitney v. California (1927),” Free Speech Center, at Middle Tennessee University, December 15, 2023, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/whitney-v-california/.
First: Except in extremely rare cases, blaming a general for carrying out his commission is idiotic. Wayne was given an assignment and he carried it out. In this case, he had to fight hostile tribes because of that was what the needs of foreign policy dictated.
Second: Arguably the achievement for which Wayne most deserves to be remembered had nothing to do with Indians at all. His brilliant victory against the British at the Battle of Stony Point (1779) helped ensure that a British plan to cut off the Hudson River was throttled. Even though the American troops soon evacuated Stony Point, the battle was a landmark in that it marked the effective end of hostilities in the North: The British decided that conquering the northern and middle states was hopeless, and they turned their attention to the South, thereby entering into the last phase of the war.
I’m really tired of semi-educated ideologues dictating to the rest of us.
Rob, as usual, you have added a dose of historical reality. Indeed, an able commander was doing what he was expected to do—although the treaty terms seem terribly unfair, even if they had lasted. It might be interesting to look at the post-Civil War conflicts. I have heard (but not explored the idea) that the availability of U. S. troops (with nothing to do) helped instigate those Indian wars.
David: Yes, I have raised the question but not answered it: What should be done? I don’t think the name should be changed (but I gather it will be). I would like to see more attention paid to the Indians who were driven out of Ohio (by the way, the Battle of the Fallen Timbers took place quite some distance from the Wayne National Forest. . . ).
Perhaps there could be a display at the forest entrance(s) about Anthony Wayne’s background, the good and the bad, and some acknowledgment of the Indians who used to live in the area. On the other hand, a treacly “mea culpa” is what would likely result . . . No really good answers.
Jane, the problem I’m seeing (especially here in Virginia) is as to the mechanism to provide “more speech” when removing statues and changing names. Names of things are potent one or two word statements that carry a considerable amount of meaning, but surely not all the meaning that could be carried. The Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. is a good example of this. It honors the enormous contributions Jefferson made, but gives no hint as to other aspects of his life that many now claim do or should materially tarnish his reputation. Renaming the Wayne Forest to the Buckeye Forest does nothing to create “more speech.” On this we agree. But what would? How does one create in one or two words “more speech” that can carry the weight on a more complete history? Maybe it is as easy as picking a better name/phrase, but if so, I don’t see that happening.