Monuments, Legitimization Ceremonies, and Haudenosaunee Rejection of Sullivan-Clinton Markers

Abstract

Monuments, Legitimization Ceremonies, and Haudenosaunee Rejection of Sullivan-Clinton Markers Andrea Lynn Smith (bio) and Nëhdöwes Randy A. John (bio) As we reach the 250th anniversary of the Revolutionary War, states and civic organizations are seeking ways to commemorate the conflict. It is timely, then, to take a closer look at the granite monoliths established by New York's Education Department in 1929 to commemorate the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign of 1779. In the contemporary era, characterized by heated debates over the meaning of monuments to the Confederacy, many Americans now recognize that understandings of national historical events are not fixed but evolve over time, and that historical markers do not necessarily represent a national consensus or even a nationwide vetting, but rather more immediate local interests. As the sociologist James Loewen has argued, a full understanding of any historical marker involves two eras, that of the event being commemorated, certainly, as well as that of the marker's establishment. It is in this spirit that we explore how and why a New York agency decided to develop the Sullivan-Clinton markers in the 1920s. The thirty-five Sullivan-Clinton monoliths identifying the paths taken by Sullivan's troops and the Native settlements they destroyed were developed as part of a multiyear celebration of the 150th anniversary (sesquicentennial) of the Revolutionary War.1 Stylistically [End Page 343] they resemble other historical markers of the era, and, moreover, as a marker series, were at the height of commemorative fashion reflecting a growth in automobile tourism. The same state committee commemorated the route Henry Knox had taken in transporting canons from Lake Champlain to Massachusetts with thirty stone markers in 1927.2 Unlike most other Revolutionary War markers, however, the Sullivan-Clinton markers carry additional meaning, for they recognize an expedition against a Native American population. They also resemble other markers and place names across the United States that document the country's origins in violent warfare against the land's Indigenous inhabitants. In this article, we consider the socially constructed nature of the 1929 Sullivan markers. In part due to their aura of permanence, stone markers can give a false sense of pre-ordination, suggesting that the message they bear is the only one possible or the "correct" interpretation of the past. Passersby may assume that they reflect consensus when in fact it is usually a small group of people—wealthy benefactors or well-positioned elites—who make decisions regarding marker placement, wording, and appearance. The state-funded Sullivan-Clinton markers are no exception. We also consider this commemorative project within a wider context that includes the Haudenosaunee, exposing a relatively unknown meeting when Six Nations participation in the planned festivities was flatly refused. Finally, we introduce an often-unseen element of the wider context of the Education Department's program, a land claims case that threatened state sovereignty in much of the Haudenosaunee homeland. New York's Invention of the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign New York State's monuments recognizing the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign evolved almost by happenstance. In the early 1920s, while some cities like Philadelphia were gearing up for massive 150th anniversary celebrations, a similar movement did not emerge in New York until the question was raised by Utica industrialist and New York road advocate W. Pierrepont White (1857–1938).3 In his role as president of the Mohawk Valley Historical Society, he passed a resolution in August 1922 calling on the state legislature to observe "New York State's magnificent Revolutionary record," promoting funding for an Oriskany battlefield [End Page 344] park and celebrations of key events such as the Battle of Saratoga.4 While it is unclear what prompted White to prepare the extensive proposal, he seemed motivated by competition with other states. He estimated other states' expenditures for their sesquicentennial ceremonies and tallied wartime battles to demonstrate that more conflicts occurred in what became New York (ninety-two) than any other state, arguing it was time the state received the recognition it deserved for its role in the nation's founding conflict.5 When Governor Alfred E. Smith signed a bill on May 24, 1923, granting funds ($5,000) to the New York State Historical...