Dear

Spectator

Editorial Board,

Taylor Kim’s article on “Hamilton and the Oneida Nation” in the April 11, 2019 issue of

The Spectator

, makes some interesting points. Anyone who has read

On the Hill

, my bicentennial history of Hamilton College, should know that I agree with her about the sometimes morally ambiguous nature of Samuel Kirkland’s mission to the Oneidas, especially in the years following the Revolution when he personally profited from the process by which the Iroquois were stripped of most of their lands. I commend her for her concerns and her admirable desire to right old wrongs.

But her article also contains the following passage, which I found a little mystifying (and, I have to say, a little insulting): “Professor Isserman’s bicentennial history of Hamilton College implies that Kirkland persuaded the [Oneida] Nation to join the Revolutionaries…” She comments, “I personally take these written histories with a grain of salt because I can never be sure of how the stories have been written from the standpoint of white colonizers.”

On the Oneida Nation website,

https://oneida-nsn.gov/our-ways/our-story/historic-timeline/samuel-kirkland/,

there is an interview with Loretta Metoxen, Oneida Tribal Historian, discussing Samuel Kirkland’s role in persuading the Oneida to side with the Patriots during the Revolution. She says, “He was effective in getting the Oneidas, the Brothertown, and the Stockbridge to fight for the colonies.”

Perhaps Taylor Kim believes that the Oneida Nation’s tribal historian is also speaking from the standpoint of the “white colonizers.” Or perhaps she should have done a little more research. It took me something south of 30 seconds to search “Samuel Kirkland and Oneida Nation and American Revolution” and find myself reading Ms. Metoxen’s insights. Given the choice between Taylor Kim’s “grain of salt” and Google, personally I’d go with Google.

Respectfully,

Maurice Isserman

Professor of History