Cross-border Competition and Cooperation

Since even before Europeans encountered the Niagara River and the falls that interrupt its flow between the lakes, the region has been a point of overlapping and interwoven alliances and conflicts. In his history of Fort Niagara, Peter A. Porter claims that the land along the river was “owned and occupied” by a native group known by the French as the Neutrals, and suggests that they derived their name from the fact that while they were “often at war with other tribes, they never warred with either the Iroquois [Haudenosaunee] or Hurons, between whom they were located.”⁸⁰ Porter may or may not have accurately traced the origin of the name, but the group of native people living in that region was indeed a member of the Iroquoian linguistic family referred to as the Neutrals. In Annals of Niagara, Kirby also writes about the Neutrals, remarking that they “were a numerous and warlike race, at war with everyone except the Hurons and Iroquois.”⁸¹ With eleven distinct groups spread from northern Ontario through upstate New York and even into parts of Pennsylvania, the Iroquoian linguistic family shared language characteristics but that similarity did not prevent occasional conflicts between them.

The Niagara River region was at the center of areas populated by at least four different groups in potential competition for resources: Neutral, Wenro, Erie, and Seneca. In Upper Canada, Huron and Petun groups claimed land to the north. In New York, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk groups, all part of the Haudenosaunee, controlled lands to the east.⁸² Despite being centrally located, the Neutrals did not choose sides in the war between the Hurons in the north and the Haudenosaunee in the east. Eventually, the Haudenosaunee overwhelmed the Hurons before turning south to destroy and disperse the Neutrals⁸³, whose name for their communities along the great river between Lakes Erie and Ontario, Onguiaahra, would become well-known throughout the province in its Gallicized form, Niagara. The story of the Neutrals and their relationship with other Iroquoian groups suggests a theme that is evident throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Niagara: groups with shared language, experiences, and desires sometimes working together and sometimes going to war to acquire access and control of resources.

Early European settlement in Niagara was similarly marked by contest and cooperation between different nations, but the terms of negotiation and engagement were recorded in official, bureaucratic formats such as claims, deeds, acts, and declarations of war. Porter identifies seven discrete periods of ownership and occupation of Fort Niagara from 1651 to 1896, in which the status of the fort and surrounding area was claimed, challenged, or defended by native tribes, the French, the British, and the Americans.⁸⁴ Following the end of the French and Indian War, in which the British had captured Fort Niagara, Britain claimed possession of all former French territory in North America. The fort and the land surrounding it, however, had never been formally ceded to the French and remained in the possession of the Seneca. In 1764, with a large force of British soldiers and allied native warriors at his disposal and wielding threats about trade prohibitions, Sir William Johnson negotiated a treaty with the Seneca to gain possession of the Niagara River from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie. In addition to formalizing a peace between the Seneca and the British, the treaty described a tract of land about 4 miles inland from the river on the east and western shores. More importantly, it also stipulated that the Seneca would not “obstruct the Passage of Carrying Place, or the free Use of any part of the said Tract,” which was of utmost importance to the protection of trade that Britain sought to control.⁸⁵ Having won occupation of the fort and land from the French and having purchased ownership from the Seneca, the British were able to manage the flow of goods through the Niagara region and contemplate settlement in the new territory. Through the end of the Revolutionary War, Fort Niagara remained a frontier outpost with the primary purpose of protecting British merchants and native allies involved in the fur trade in the Great Lakes.

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, trade in and through the Niagara region became another point of contest and cooperation for British and Americans alike. The easiest way to navigate Upper Canada was by boat or canoe, but portage routes were needed to move people and goods from Lake Erie around the falls to access Lake Ontario. Furs and other goods traveling east and supplies traveling west were all funneled toward a single point, which captured the attention of logistically minded military officers and enterprising merchants. During the years of French military presence, the portage route around Niagara Falls was on the eastern side of the river, which may have benefited from the presence of native inhabitants looking for work as porters.⁸⁶ When the British took control of the fort, they also took over the work of the portage, “monopolizing that business, and employing carts,” rather than native people to carry the goods.⁸⁷ Following the forfeit of Fort Niagara and the lands east of the river to the United States in 1794, the British quickly sought to create their own portage route around the falls on their side and so retain control of the trade route. By 1790, a road had been built along the western shore of the river to facilitate trade to and from the western regions of Quebec. Merchants such as Robert Hamilton and George Forsythe helped plan and implement the road in order to benefit from the increase in merchandise being shipped through the area and sold in markets both local and distant.⁸⁸ David W. Smyth, Surveyor-General of Upper Canada, wrote about the transport of goods through the region: “When the wind serves, vessels run up from Newark to Queenstown, and unload their cargoes, receiving packs of peltries in return, for the Lower Canada merchants. Fifty waggons have passed this carrying place in the course of a day.”⁸⁹ Smyth’s account is similar to one provided by a traveler printed in Philadelphia in 1796, in which the author describes seeing at Queenston “four vessels of sixty and one hundred tons burthen, unloading at the same time, and sometimes not less than sixty waggons loaded in a day” taking goods up the portage road to Chippewa.⁹⁰ These accounts both demonstrate the increasing traffic of goods through the region and the benefits to merchants, transporters, and the government controlling the route, customs houses, and portage roads in Niagara.

The opportunities created by the growth of settlements in Niagara and the accompanying increase in trade were also beneficial to American merchants who could forge the necessary partnerships spanning the border. The need for collaboration between British and American merchants, though risky in a time of political conflict, is evident in a letter from Peter Walton and Son in Albany, New York, to James Cummings and Co., in Chippewa, Upper Canada. Written in 1812, the letter includes the news that many people believed the United States Congress would soon declare war on Britain and that such a development “will operate very much against as all.”⁹¹ Cummings was one of the merchants operating on the river alongside well-established operators such as Hamilton, Dickson, and Street. His connection with partners across the border, as well as their shared concern about the disruption to trade, was common among merchants whose loyalties did not prevent them from seeking the best avenue for profit.

As the conflict between the two nations intensified in 1811 and 1812, men whose livelihoods relied on the uninterrupted flow of furs from the west and goods from the east made preparations and alerted their partners to changes in status. On June 20th, 1812, John Jacob Astor, a young merchant already experiencing success in the fur trade that would later make him famous, sent letters to British merchant contacts, warning them of the declaration of war and potential impact on commercial activities. One courier headed to the Montreal offices of Forsyth, Richardson, and Co. and McTavish, McGillivray, and Co., two firms from the Northwest Fur Company partnership who were deeply invested in merchandise that could be threatened by war with the United States. The merchants passed on the information to the secretary of Sir George Prevost, who forwarded it to Lord Liverpool on the next ship from Quebec.⁹² Another courier, James Vosburgh, travelled to Niagara and crossed the river to deliver Astor’s letter to merchant Thomas Clark, who promptly informed Major-General Isaac Brock at Fort George.⁹³ Through these commercial dispatches sent by an American, news of the outbreak of war first reached his British trade partners and then the British military. Cooperation across the border, particularly in Niagara, was important enough to the inhabitants and their partners that they risked being accused of collusion with the other side. More significantly, the speedy messages sent in the interest of commerce became a decisive factor in the opening weeks of the war, as discussed in Module 2.⁹⁴

The outbreak of war between Britain and the United States also disrupted the complex familial connections between the communities on each side of the river. Many Loyalist families had migrated from the former colonies and retained significant family ties on the American side of the river. In 1811, Catherine Prendergast moved with her family from Upper Canada to Mayville in Chautauqua County, New York, leaving behind a suitor named William Hamilton Merritt who had been born in the U.S. but chose to remain loyal to the British when the war began. Their relationship was strained throughout the war as Merritt fought for the British and Prendergast begged him to desert and join her in New York. In January 1815, Merritt languished as a prisoner of war and Prendergast lost hope for their future, writing him, “Situated as we now are, it would be folly to suppose we ever shall meet, at least for a number of years.”⁹⁵ Fortunately for the two young people, when a declaration of peace was made, they were reunited and married within the year. When the war ended, they returned to Upper Canada and became one of the region’s most influential families of the nineteenth century. For many inhabitants of Upper Canada, the war disrupted trans-national lives that included frequent and common border crossings and close relationships with people who were suddenly redefined as “enemies.” The relationship between Catherine Prendergast and William Merritt embodied the conflict created during war between national loyalties defined by political boundaries and personal relationships between those on each side.