Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
John Trumbull: A Founding Father of American Art
Benjamin West and John Trumbull
Conflicting Interpretations, Paradoxical Images:
The Complicated Relationship Between John Trumbull and Native Americans
Keira Dillon
One of the best sketches by John Trumbull in Fordham University's collection
is Hopothle Mico, 1790 (cat. 3). This is, however, not the only sketch of
a Native American that Trumbull executed, and it is interesting to examine
the various ways Trumbull approaches the subject. Americans have had a contentious
and complicated relationship with Native Americans from colonial times to
the present, and Trumbull-who himself had several personal encounters with
Native Americans both as a child and as a young painter-may reflect that complicated
view of Native Americans as well. He may even have anticipated some of the
themes found in early nineteenth century art and literature concerning Native
Americans.
Trumbull recounts early in his autobiography a story about an Indian chief
Zachary. Trumbull begins, "At the age of nine or ten a circumstance occurred
which deserves to be written on adamant".1 Trumbull describes Zachary, one
of the Mohegan hunters his father employed, as "of the royal race, an excellent
hunter, but as drunken and worthless an Indian as ever lived".2 After several
of Zachary's relatives, who were next in line to rule, died, Zachary became
chief of his tribe. Realizing how important his new role as chief would be,
Zachary vowed to never drink anything again except water.
Trumbull recalls, "I had heard this story, and did not entirely believe it;
for as young as I was, I already partook in the prevailing contempt for Indians".3
One night, he took the opportunity to tempt Zachary. Trumbull vividly describes
the scene:
I addressed the old chief-"Zachary,
this beer is excellent; will you taste it?" The old man . leaned forward
. his black eye sparkling with indignation, was fixed on me. "John," said
he, "you do not know what you are doing. You are serving the devil, boy!
Do you not know that I am an Indian? I tell you that.if I should but taste
your beer, I could never stop until I got to rum, and became again the drunken,
contemptible wretch your father remembers me to have been. John, while you
live, never again tempt any man to break a good resolution." Socrates never
uttered a more valuable precept-Demosthenes could not have given it in more
solemn tones of eloquence. I was thunderstruck. My parents were deeply affected;
they looked at each other, at me and at the venerable old Indian, with deep
feelings of awe and respect.4
Trumbull later visited the grave of Zachary-who never broke his resolution-and
repeated to himself the "inestimable lesson".5 Young John and his parents
were impressed by the Mohegan chief's resolve and seemingly altered their
opinions of Native Americans as a result. Clearly Trumbull initially disliked
and disrespected Native Americans, as did so many Americans of his time. However,
his own cruel act led him to a newfound respect for this previously "worthless
Indian." Martin Price astutely points out, "What must strike us is not simply
that a reformed Mohegan chief is shown veneration but that he is likened to
classical figures".6 Trumbull not only offers Zachary words of admiration,
but also compares him to the great figures of the classical age in wisdom
and eloquence. It is hardly imaginable that many colonial Americans would
use such analogies to describe Native Americans. Trumbull's rhetorical flourishes
in favor of Zachary indicate that he could view at least some Indians positively.
In fact, several of his portraits seem to confirm this possibility. His sketch
of Hopothle Mico, for instance, is a study of an Indian chief,7 showing a
man of dignity and physical beauty. Oswaldo Rodriquez Roque observes, "Trumbull's
exceptional ability in his portrait drawings to capture a sense of personality
is evident in this study".8 The strength and nobility of this figure seems
to reflect a positive and admiring view of Native Americans.
Similarly, Hysac, or the Woman's Man, 1790, also part of Fordham's collection,
offers a graceful and contemplative vision of a Native American (cat. 4).9
Like Hopothle, Hysac has strong physical features and demonstrates an individual
personality. While both of these Native Americans' physical attributes suggest
strength and character, their necklaces also give us a clue as to their activities.
The silver gorgets they wear were typical gifts from American diplomats to
their allies.10 Irma Jaffe believes these two men took a role in the delegation
that made a treaty between the Creeks and the men of New York in 1790.11 Their
dignified portraits, therefore, express not only their physical appearance
but also their authority and achievements.
The Yale University Art Gallery also possesses a number of portraits of strong
Native Americans painted by Trumbull. "The Young Sachem," A Chief of the Six
Nations, was done in oil in 1792, and, unlike Hopothle Mico and Hysac, this
man shows no sign of having assimilated into white society. He has
long hair, no peace necklace and is wearing a loosely draped white cloth.
As in the other portraits, he has clear eyes, a well-formed nose and forehead,
and a peaceful demeanor. Also done in oil in 1792 "Good Peter," Chief of the
Oneida Indians, has a calm expression with strongly-defined features. A final
portrait is "The Infant," Chief of the Seneca Indians, 1792; he also has loose
clothes and long hair. His expression, however, is quite intense and his sideways
glance can certainly intimidate an onlooker.
Trumbull's favorable recollection of Zachary and these dignified portraits
of seem to assure us that he appreciated Native Americans. Yet, Trumbull's
later condescending stories of Native American leaders and a number of gruesome
sketches of Indian warriors suggest that he could see them in less positive
ways as well. In his autobiography, Trumbull noted that he hoped to create
portraits of Native Americans because they "possessed a dignity of manner,
form, countenance and expression, worthy of Roman senators.".12 Unfortunately,
Trumbull encountered some Indian chiefs, whose behavior led him to believe
that they-unlike the Romans-were too naïve and ignorant to appreciate art.
One day, George Washington wondered how Native Americans would react to seeing
a life-like portrait of themselves painted by Trumbull. Trumbull observed
that they were shocked by the portrait, and that after touching the painting,
the chiefs could barely believe that the surface was flat.13 Since Trumbull
believed that the Native Americans could not understand the nature of painting
he never asked any of them to sit for him. However, this did not inhibit him
from ".obtaining drawings of several by stealth."14 Perhaps Trumbull's attitude
towards Native Americans changed from the time when he admired the wise old
Zachary? Here Trumbull expressed disappointment at the chiefs' ignorance.
But even in this instance Trumbull was impressed by the dignity of Native
Americans' physical features and expression and likened them to Roman senators.
Trumbull's later history shows that he doubted the intellectual ability of
Native American leaders, and his sketches for The Murder of Jane McCrea show
that he was also prepared to see them in a savage light. John Morgon suggests
that several of Trumbull's portraits of Native Americans-namely "Good Peter,"
"Young Sachem," and "The Infant"-may have been drawn in preparation for The
Murder of Jane McCrea.15 While this painting was never executed, Fordham has
several sketches for this subject (cat. 10, 11, 12). That three of these calm
and distinguished Native Americans were possibly painted for use in such a
horrific murder must raise questions about how positively Trumbull viewed
Native Americans overall.
The murder of Jane McCrea is believed to have occurred during the American
Revolution and was depicted by several artists during the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries. Frances K. Pohl interprets John Vanderlyn's
The Death of Jane McCrea, (Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford) of 1804, as both
anti-British and anti-Indian. Since the British hired Mohawks to fight the
colonists during the Revolution, Pohl suggests that Jane was symbolic of all
vulnerable colonists being brutalized by the British. In addition, the murder
offers proof that Indians should be eliminated: they were a threat to America's
women and children and therefore, a threat to the future of America.16 There
are several versions of the story of Jane McCrea's murder. What they share
is the same message: an innocent young American girl is murdered by brutal
Indians. The irreconcilable differences in the stories may explain why Trumbull
finally abandoned the work,17 but not before sketching two versions, omitting
and combining the elements of various accounts. In The Murder of Jane McCrea
(I), 1790, Trumbull shows a naked Jane in the midst of an Indian quarrel (cat.
10). The image shows a helpless Jane at the mercy of several Native Americans
who are about to stab her through the breast. The Murder of Jane McCrea (II),
1790, shows Jane running into the fray as if to save a lieutenant from Native
Americans with spears (cat. 11).
Even though Trumbull decided not to execute this subject, it is significant
that he chose to sketch it at all, and in such a grotesque way, and most importantly
that he may have used the seemingly calm and admirable portraits of Native
Americans as preparation for that work. His illustrations play up the savagery
of Native Americans and also emphasize the innocence of the American colonists.
Trumbull seems to offer evidence for concluding that he held two contrary
opinions about Native Americans: on the one hand, the naïve wonder of the
Native Americans before the Washington portrait as well as the savagery of
the McCrea massacre seem to indicate that they are unintelligent and uncivilized,
while on the other hand, the wisdom of Zachary and dignity of all of Trumbull's
Native American portraits seem to indicate that they are intelligent and noble.
Is there a resolution to this tension?
This type of tension is in fact typical of American art during the early
and mid nineteenth century. Although Trumbull was painting before this trend
emerged in full force, there are many similarities between Trumbull's views
of Native Americans and those of artists and writers of the early nineteenth
century. Historian Robert Berkhofer, Jr. in The White Man's Indian, recognizes
that "the noble and savage Indian made an ideal subject for American high
culture".18 In "Inventing the Indian," Julie Schimmel similarly argues that
"Indians were commonly judged as [either] "good" or "bad".19 During the 1830s,
Indians were often admired because they were conceived as "natural" and independent
men of the wilderness. In fact, traditionally the New World, and even America,
had often been represented as an "Indian Queen," who was associated with the
promise of new land and unbounded nature.20 However, during the 1840s, the
" 'dark side', the superstitious, godless, 'savage'" view of the Indian became
more prominent.21 There emerged in art and literature a clear (but unsettling)
contrast between the enlightened and primitive Indian.22
Schimmel also observes that nineteenth century portraits of Native Americans
show "well-formed heads with high foreheads and prominent noses, which recalled
. men of Roman physique and virtue . The light of intelligence can be seen
in their eyes."23 This description of nineteenth century Native American portraits
is almost identical to Trumbull's impression of Native Americans-"dignity
of countenance . worthy of Roman Senators".24 It is also certainly an appropriate
description of Hopothle Mico, Hysac and his other portraits. Indians had a
quiet manner and were "conceived as Roman nobles, these [were] men to be admired
for physical prowess as well as reason".25 This too is an apt description
of Trumbull's portraits and recalls the wisdom of Zachary.
Men and women of the nineteenth century frequently viewed Native Americans
as noble as well as savage. In the 1840s, paintings increasingly contained
negative views of Native Americans, especially in conflict scenes. Schimmel
notes, "Indians in battle were consistently viewed as barbarians who staged
massacres while whites courageously defended themselves".26 The victimization
of an innocent female became a (stereo)typical painting, and in the context
of most 1840s paintings, the female victim represented white civilization
and the savage Indian was presumed guilty.27 The murder of Jane McCrea perfectly
fits this nineteenth century trope of Indian conflict. Although Trumbull did
not execute the painting, his sketches express visions of terribly brutal
Indians while presupposing the innocence of Jane. The thematic trends that
Schimmel and Berkhofer discuss supposedly occur after Trumbull's time, but
it seems undeniable that Trumbull's personal statements and several sketches
exemplify this nineteenth century tension of seeing Indians as either noble
or savage, or both.
Perhaps, however, there is another answer to Trumbull's apparently conflicting
attitude toward Native Americans. The key may lie in his artistic mission
to portray each sitter as an individual. Just as he was able to capture the
personality of each Euro-American person whom he painted or sketched, perhaps
Trumbull was also able to understand the Indians he encountered as individuals.
Perhaps his opinions concerning Native Americans were not "conflicting," but
were instead as varied as the men whom he confronted and heard. He may have
been able to see-perhaps only slightly more than his peers, and perhaps not
all the time, and perhaps not even fully consciously-beyond the generalities
of either extreme and could see Indians as individuals: some good, some bad,
some noble, some ignorant, but most no doubt a combination of many virtues
and vices. Such a conjecture is further strengthened when we recall that it
is only a hypothesis that the portraits "Good Peter," "Young Sachem," and
"The Infant" were done for the McCrea murder study. It is possible that Trumbull
did not intend to use these dignified portraits for a massacre scene at all-maybe
they were meant to stand alone. Due to the incomplete nature of the historical
record, we are given the risky opportunity (and the responsibility) to speculate.
However, the sketches and stories do speak to the viewer, and they should
raise questions about what Trumbull's deeper message may have been and what
his paintings may reflect. From one perspective, his works can challenge our
assumptions about how people of the past viewed Native Americans and can lead
us to conclude that Trumbull's sketches and paintings may be working on many
levels-some gentle, some prophetic, others cruel, and still others ambivalent.
Whatever his intentions, Trumbull's works give rise to a variety of interpretations
as diverse as the people he sought to represent.
1 John Trumbull, The Autobiography of Colonel John Trumbull, ed. Theodore
Sizer, New Haven, 1953, p. 7.
2 Trumbull, p. 7.
3 Trumbull, p. 7.
4 Trumbull, p. 8.
5 Trumbull, p. 8.
6 Martin Price, "The Power of Imagination: Trumbull's Works on Literary Themes,"
in Helen A. Cooper, John Turmbull: The Hand and Spirit of a Painter, New Haven,
1982, p. 233.
7 In "Fordham University's Trumbull Drawings: Mistaken Identities in The Declaration
of Independence and Other Discoveries," American Art Journal, v. 3, no. 1,
1971, p. 15, Irma Jaffe contends that the portrait may in fact be of Alexander
McGillivray, who was the son of a European man and an Indian princess. As
a half-breed he received a European-style education but eventually returned
to live with and lead the Creek Indians. Even if the sitter is in fact only
half-Indian, he was clearly accepted as a Creek.
8 Cooper, catalogue entry 103, p. 150.
9 Jaffe, p. 19, Jaffe proposes that Hysac was a member of Alexander McGillivray's
delegation that signed a treaty in 1790 with the Americans.
10 Oswaldo Rodriguez Roque, "Trumbull's Potraits," in Cooper, p. 103.
11 Jaffe, pp. 14-19.
12 Trumbull, p. 167.
13 Trumbull, p. 167.
14 Trumbull, p. 167.
15 Cooper, catalogue entries 58, 63, 93 pp. 131-2, 144.
16 Frances K. Pohl, "Old World, New World: The Encounter of Culture on the
American Frontier," in Stephen Eisenman's Nineteenth Century Art: A Critical
History, London, 1994, pp. 147-148.
17 One eyewitnesses said Jane was "shot from her horse by Indians," and eventually
her body was found stripped, full of knife wounds and she was scalped. A second
eyewitness reports that Jane was in the midst of a quarrel among Indians and
a chief shot her out of anger and eventually scalped her. Others agree that
she was found naked and shot, but other details differ. (Jaffe, pp. 22-23.)
18 Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr., The White Man's Indian, New York, 1978, p. 87.
19 Julie Schimmel, "Inventing 'the Indian'," The West as America: Reinterpreting
Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920, ed. William H. Truettner, Washington, D.C.,
1991, pp. 149-89.
20 Pohl, pp. 145-147.
21 Schimmel, p. 151.
22 Schimmel, p. 151.
23 Schimmel, p. 151.
24 Trumbull, p. 167.
25 Schimmel, p. 153.
26 Schimmel, p. 162.
27 Schimmel, p. 162.
Top of Page
