Summary Of The Indiens Was Upon Us

Dealing with the historical record can be challenging at times, especially for scholars and historians. Most information about past events have either been lost or have been tampered with over the years. Some information has also been exaggerated or some have been too vague. The chapter, “The Indiens Was Upon Us!” from Paul E. Kopperman’s book, “Braddock at the Monongahela,” is any example of how challenging it is for scholars to deal with the historical record. The chapter, “The Indiens Was Upon Us,” depicts the massacre of General Edward Braddock’s British Army on July 9th, 1755, toward the start of the French and Indian War. General Edward Braddock was sent with an army to take over the French Fort Duquesne, now known as modern-day Pittsburg

After brutal and intense hours, most of the British army has either been killed or wounded and General Braddock, after being shot off of his horse, died three days later. This attack on the British army is now known as the “Battle of the Monongahela,” also sometimes referred to as “Braddock’s Defeat.” The Battle of the Monongahela has also been described to be one of the most humiliating and disastrous defeats in Britain’s history (Faragher). Many historians and spectators blame the defeat on General Braddock himself since the British army had superior numbers and experienced soldiers. Historians debate the tactics used by General Braddock, which cost him his army and his life. He was made out to be a fool after historians realized that he has been using European tactics and methods on American land, where Indians had the home-field advantage and was familiar with their surroundings. Others blame the soldiers and others blame the colonial militia after they had mistakenly shot and killed dozens of British soldiers, as they were under the impression that the men wandering behind the trees was the French

In the chapter, we learn that not only the officers were interviewed about this battle. Nurses and anyone who was not in battle but was on the fairgrounds was interviewed. We see the difficulty scholars faced when interviewing these men and women because all of their stories were different. Some were either too vague and was completely discarded, or some were unusually specific, making scholars skeptical whether or not the story was highly exaggerated or was completely faked. On pages 66 and 67 of the chapter “The Indiens Was Upon Us,” it quotes:
“It is entirely possible that British B was not an eyewitness to the collision itself. Not knowing his place in the line of march, we cannot be certain one way or the other. My own guess is that his version is a conglomerate of wild reports, made wilder. In any case, when we weight the evidence ranged against him, it becomes clear that he is, simply speaking, wrong.” We see that when interviewed, one can easily exaggerate others’ stories to make one side seem like the antagonist. Scholars will have to deal with exaggerated stories in the historical record because one side will always want to make the other side the bad guy, even if the story is