Talk:Sir William Johnson, 1st Baronet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additions and Revisions

Hello, Fergananim here. Have just made a a great number of significant additions to this article, based on a brilliant new bio (see Sources). I hope the original writer dos'nt mind! 12th August 2005.

The Benjamin West Portrait

Please note that the National Gallery of Art still has the Benjamin West portrait listed as follows:

Benjamin West, American, 1738 - 1820

Colonel Guy Johnson and Karonghyontye (Captain David Hill), 1776

oil on canvas, 202 x 138 cm (79 1/2 x 54 3/8 in.)

Andrew W. Mellon Collection, 1940.1.10

The British superintendent of northeastern America's six Indian nations, Guy Johnson commissioned this impressive portrait in 1776 while in London to secure that royal appointment. Sailing from Canada, Johnson must have been accompanied by his close friend Karonghyontye, a Mohawk chief who also went by the English name of David Hill. The alliance between British forces and several Indian tribes seriously threatened the rebel colonists' chances of victory during the Revolutionary War.

For this likeness, Benjamin West devised a complex allegory. To signify Johnson's role as ambassador to the Indians, his red-coated uniform is equipped with moccasins, wampum belt, Indian blanket, and Mohawk cap. Karonghyontye points to a peace pipe, while Johnson grasps a musket. This suggests that harmony between Europeans and Indians will be maintained at all costs. The concept of cooperation extends to the background, where an Indian family gathers peacefully before a British military tent.

West claimed that Pennsylvania Indians had taught him to mix paints from berries and clays when he was a child. A notably diplomatic man, he served George III as a court painter while urging the king to grant independence to the colonists!

I don't believe that this portrait is universally accepted as being of Sir William Johnson. The caption should at least be changed to indicate this uncertainty. Nonenmac 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The only "evidence" I can find in O'Toole's book to back his claim that this picture is of William Johnson, is that the falls in the background is Niagara Falls. As someone who has seen both Niagara Falls and Cohoes Falls I say that these falls are definitely not Niagara Falls and that they look similar to Cohoes Falls. I think this picture should be removed. BradMajors 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

O'Toole has other reasons, based in part on his interpretation of a series of West portraits, but we don't need to go into it in this article. I'd remove the picture from this article and briefly discuss O'Toole's theory only in the Guy Johnson article. —Kevin Myers 09:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Pictures

I recommend the removal of the irrelevant pictures of Brant, Henrick, and John Johnson. BradMajors 03:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The images certainly could be re-added if anyone ever writes a serious, full-length article. Until then, we have image overload. —Kevin Myers 09:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

False Information

There are many falsities in this article. My father and I descend from William Johnson and Mary Brandt, we have read and discussed it and found that the information which explains William as a slave holder is false, my father said that William was strongly opposed to slavery and the bounty of scalping children. Also, my father said that scalping is Irish tradition and that the Mahicans learned this from Irish. Please correct this article and prove the authenticity of its sources. GLogic (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your father is mistaken. Johnson owned slaves, which he often mentioned in his own writings; in his last will, he divided his slaves among his children. Johnson paid for scalps; what he thought about the scalping of children may be unknown. The origin of scalping is irrelevant in this article. —Kevin Myers 06:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was doing the report for History 111 class on Allan W. Eckert’s “Wilderness Empire”, where Johnson is prominently featured, and there was hardly ever the mention of slaves (for instance, in the first lines of Chapter III author just states that Johnson returned “to his new and more spacious Mount Johnson, which he had begun building a mile away from the old Mount Johnson residence”, then describes it as a large house made of stone, that would serve as a sanctuary when attacked as well). Bear in mind, that the book is a historical novel — non-fiction section in a library, based on extensive research, and annotated, yet a novel nonetheless. A lot of the story corroborates, but I had feeling that Eckert tended to romanticize Johnson a bit.

As for scalping children, Eckert doesn’t mention that (unless I missed it), although he states that Johnson did pay bounty for French scalps out of his own pocket, expecting New York Colonial Assembly to reimburse him, which didn’t happen (Assembly continued to imede his work in Indian Affairs which led to his resignation). On scalping, Wikipedia states, that some (though not all) North American aboriginal tribes practiced it, and while Europeans of all sorts paid bounties, and participated in, there’s no conclusive evidence that it was introduced by Europeans. However, article states that Scythian nomads in Eurasian steppes (as described by Herodotus in 440 b.c.e.) and European tribes around IX century c.e. (Visigoths, Franks, Anglo-Saxons) did practice scalping). theUg (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Irish were in fact renowned for spectacular military violence, including head-taking, and for their willingness to enslave people of any ethnicity, including their own. DinDraithou (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1