WAS THE PONTIAC UPRISING A CONSPIRACY?
by WILBUR R. JACOBS
Instructor in American History, Santa
Barbara College,
University of California
Ever since Francis Parkman wrote his
classic account of
the Indian war of 1763, historians have
questioned the exact
nature of the origin of Parkman's
so-called "conspiracy" of
Pontiac. Contemporary manuscripts
reveal that there were enough
abuses suffered by the Indians at the
hands of the whites to justify
in the minds of the natives a
rebellion. Was the indignation of
the tribesmen the cause of a concerted
attack upon the British
outposts in the summer of 1763? Or were
the secret machinations
of the great "Pondiac" behind
this furious native outbreak?
By the very title of his work, The
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
Francis Parkman indicated that he
believed the Ottawa leader to
have been the organizer of the Indian
attackers. Verification of
this view can again be seen when
Parkman writes that near the
end of the year 1762 Pontiac
sent ambassadors to the different nations.
They visited the country of
the Ohio and its tributaries, passed
northward to the region of the upper
lakes, and the borders of the river
Ottawa; and far southward towards
the mouth of the Mississippi. Bearing
with them the war-belt of wampum,
broad and long, as the importance of the
message demanded, and the
tomahawk stained red, in token of war,
they went from camp to camp
and village to village.1
1 Francis Parkman, The Conspiracy of
Pontiac and the Indian War after the
Conquest of Canada (3 vols., Boston, 1898), I, 194-195. Parkman's
incomplete
citation for this statement is as
follows: "MS. Letter-M. D'Abbadie to M. Neyon,
1764." Professor Albert T. Volwiler
supports Parkman's thesis that the Indian
war followed the pattern of a carefully
designed conspiracy against the British. In
his scholarly biography of George
Croghan he states: "So well planned and wide-
spread was Pontiac's conspiracy that by
midsummer in 1763 the English remained
in possession of but three of the French
posts which they had just occupied. Nine
forts were surprised and captured, two
thousand English soldiers, traders, and
settlers captured or killed, often with
the foulest barbarity, some thousands of
English settlers driven to beggary, and
traders and troops plundered of goods valued
at nearly £100,000. Albert T. Volwiler, George
Croghan and the Westward Move-
ment, 1741-1782 (Cleveland,
1926), 164.
26
The Pontiac Uprising 27
Parkman's authority for this statement
is a letter which he
cites but which has not been located
since his time. The letter
is by one Sieur d'Abbadie, the newly
appointed Ordonnateur of
Louisiana, and the date is loosely
given merely as "1764." No
place is cited. D'Abbadie arrived in Louisiana from
France on
June 29, 1763, and was hardly in a
position to give accurate
information relative to Pontiac's
actions in the year 1762.2 The
fact that war-belts were being
circulated by the northern and
western Indians is, however,
substantiated by other sources.3 It
does seem odd, nevertheless, that
Parkman would rely chiefly
upon a letter written in 1764, two
years after Pontiac had sent
his wampum ambassadors "from camp
to camp and village to
village." Since this source
confirms his whole thesis of the "con-
spiracy" of Pontiac, Parkman might
well have given a complete
description of the letter.
In his new book concerning Pontiac's
war, Howard H.
Peckham takes a different view and
maintains that "there was no
grand conspiracy or preconcerted plan
on his [Pontiac's] part
embracing all the western tribes."4
Peckham contends further
that the whole uprising was a war for
Indian independence with
a local conspiracy at Detroit. The
interpretation follows that
Pontiac did attempt a more general
uprising but only after his
first attempts were foiled. It was
these second attempts which
almost forced the British to give up
their major frontier posts.
For an evaluation of these opposing
points of view, the source
materials are meager. Despite Parkman's
lifelike picture of the
character and personality of Pontiac
and the manner in which the
conspiracy was planned, it is apparent
that the great writer on the
French and Indian War was occasionally
treading upon soft
ground.5 When he uncovered
the Pontiac manuscript which he
2 See
Kerlerec to Minister, July 4, 1763, Archives Nationales, Colonies, C 13,
43:206. Also see sketch in Reuben Gold
Thwaites, ed., "The French Regime in
Wisconsin--III," Collections of
the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, XVIII
(1908), 221n.
3 See footnotes 22 and 23.
4 Howard H. Peckham, Pontiac and the
Indian Uprising (Princeton, 1947),
111.
5 Peckham questions Parkman's use of the
writings of Robert Rogers as an
authority. See ibid., 59-62.
28
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
used so skillfully in his narrative,
Parkman was relying upon
the work of an unknown author,
presumably a French priest. In
justifying the use of this document
Parkman declared that the
details closely paralleled events
described in other sources. He
further wrote that "this very
minuteness affords strong internal
evidence of its authenticity."
This unidentified author was sup-
posed to have secured his knowledge
concerning Pontiac, the
speeches of the Ottawa leader, and the
secret negotiations pre-
ceding the attack on Detroit from
French Canadians who were
present at certain Indian council
meetings.6
Howard H. Peckham also used this
manuscript, which has
since been attributed to one Robert
Navarre, a Canadian, and
secured much material from the collections of the William L.
Clements Library.7 Parkman,
of course, had no opportunity to
use the collections.
Aside from this Pontiac manuscript, or
the Navarre journal,
the source materials contain relatively
little regarding Pontiac
as an individual. The Bouquet papers at
the Canada Archives,
the Amherst correspondence at the
Library of Congress, and the
Gage papers at the William L. Clements Library include much
general material relative to the Indian
war of 1763 but almost
nothing concerning the exact nature of
the origin of the war.
Much must be left to a close
examination of the letters of the
frontiersmen and soldiers who were
involved in the conflict.8
6 Parkman, op. cit., I, 215n.
7 Peckham has relied upon Robert
Navarre's Journal of the Conspiracy of
Pontiac, 1763, translated by R. Clyde Ford (Detroit, 1910), for most
of the material
in his book relating to the origin of
the war. R. Clyde Ford states that Robert
Navarre, the scrivener, was probably the
author. C. M. Burton, who wrote the
preface to the translation, states that
the writing proves that no priest was the
author of the manuscript. For a
description of the General Thomas Gage Papers
in the William L. Clements Library, see Guide
to the Manuscript Collections in the
William L. Clements Library, compiled by Howard H. Peckham (Ann Arbor, 1942).
Selections from these papers were published
by Clarence E. Carter in The Corre-
spondence of General Thomas Gage with
the Secretaries of State, 1763-1775 (2
vols.,
New Haven, 1931-33). Peckham also used
the Sir Jeffery Amherst Papers, Public
Record Office, War Office 34. A
summarized index covering volumes 1-250 and a
detailed index covering part of the
papers are available in the division of manu-
scripts of the Library of Congress. The
University of Michigan General Library
has a microfilm copy of the Amherst
Papers.
8 See manuscript and printed works
relating to Robert Rogers, George
Croghan, Sir William Johnson, Sir
Jeffery Amherst, General Thomas Gage, General
Robert Monckton, Colonel Henry Bouquet, Major Henry
Gladwin, and Captain
The Pontiac Uprising 29
Whether the war broke out as a result
of Pontiac's intrigues
or whether the Indians merely followed
his example, it is clear
that the tribesmen along the whole
northwestern frontier were
ripe for vengeance against the whites.
By the spring of 1763
only a spark was needed to start the
conflagration.
One of the chief causes for anger among
the warriors was
the parsimonious attitude of the
British government in the matter
of giving supplies to the Indians.
After the long war they were
in great need of food and had little
ammunition. French officers
had long since recognized that the day
of the bow and arrow had
passed.9 For hunting
purposes the Indians now needed powder
and lead. Yet it was these very items
which were withheld from
the tribesmen by the British because of
a fear of rebellion. Fur-
thermore, there was ordered a drastic
cut in food, clothing,
jewelry, and hardware hitherto given
rather freely to the Indians.
If any man could be held responsible
for the new British policy
of making the natives hunt for their
livelihood instead of giving
them free presents, it was the
commander-in-chief of the British
forces, Sir Jeffery Amherst.
Sir Jeffery's correspondence shows that
he misunderstood the
Indians and underestimated their
military strength.10 He signed
warrants authorizing supplies for the
warriors while they were
still fighting the French; but after
the war the Indian fighting
men were treated as mere pawns of the
British military. Begging
Indians were turned away, and those who
had furs to trade were
told to leave after they had finished
their business. The credit
system was largely abandoned, and the
warrior had to pay a high
price for a cheap stroud to warm his
body.l1
Donald Campbell. A great deal of the
source material relating to the Indian war
is found in the Bouquet Papers in the
British Museum. The Bouquet correspondence
has in part been published in a mimeographed form by
the Pennsylvania Historical
Commission. See also the transcripts of
the Bouquet Papers, Series A., in the
Canadian Archives. A calendar, which was
originally begun by Douglas Brymer,
archivist, in the Reports of the
Canada Archives, is very useful.
9 See
D'Abbadie to Accaron, April 10, 1764, Archives Nationales, Colonies,
C 13, 44:52.
10 For a summary of Amherst's policy
toward the Indians, see Jeffery Amherst
to George Croghan, May 11, 1763, Bouquet
Papers, A 4, pp. 223-235, Canadian
Archives photostat.
11 See Indian Trade Regulations at Fort
Pitt, in James Sullivan and others,
eds., The Papers of Sir William
Johnson (9 vols., Albany, 1921-39), III, 530-532.
30
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Personally Amherst thought that the
Indians were a nuisance
and should be exterminated. These
sentiments were revealed when
it became apparent that the Indian war
of 1763 was more than a
scattered outbreak of howling savages.
Aroused and frustrated
because of the Indian victories, Sir
Jeffery urged Colonel Henry
Bouquet to spread the scourge of
smallpox among the attacking
tribes!12 If this strategem did not
prove successful, Amherst was
in favor of hunting the savages down
with ferocious dogs. It was
unthinkable to the general that these
men of the Stone Age would
have the effrontery to launch an
assault upon his Royal American
troops.
With such a man in a position to
control the management of
Indian affairs it is no wonder that
there was an Indian outbreak.
Sir William Johnson and George Croghan
saw the handwriting on
the wall. They tried to restrain
Amherst in his tight-fisted policy
toward the natives, but the general
would not be swayed from
his course.
Although the discontinuance of presents
to the Indians was
a factor which irritated all the
tribes, the Delaware were espe-
cially aroused against the whites by a
prophet called the Dela-
ware Prophet or the Impostor, who rose
among them. This re-
ligious leader, who claimed to have had
contact with the "Great
Spirit," advocated that the
Indians return to their primitive way
of life and abandon the influences of
the white man's civilization.
He also emphasized the evils of
polygamy, but apparently he had
no military program.l3
It remained for Pontiac to revise this
prophecy from the
"Master of Life." In his
speech before the representatives of the
Ottawa, the Fox, and the Huron it was
asserted by Pontiac that
12 Parkman,
op. cit., II, 173-174. Colonel Henry Bouquet's answer to Amherst's
request is found in a letter from
Bouquet to Amherst dated July 13, 1763. Bouquet
wrote: "I will try to inoculate the
.............. with Some Blankets that may fall
in their Hands, and take Care not to get
the Disease myself." Pennsylvania His-
torical Survey, The Papers of Col.
Henry Bouquet (19 vols., Harrisburg, 1940-43),
Series 21634, pp. 214-215. Captain
Simeon Ecuyer, commander at Fort Pitt during
the seige, did give the Indians some
blankets from the smallpox hospital. See A.
T. Volwiler, ed., "William Trent's
Journal at Fort Pitt, 1763," Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, XI (1924), 400.
13 Collections of the State
Historical Society of Wisconsin, XVIII
(1908),
259-260.
The Pontiac Uprising 31
the "Master of Life" desired
that the Indians drive the whites
out of their country and make war upon
them.l4 Apparently
Pontiac did a thorough job in arousing
the Indians to a fighting
frenzy. Even the Illinois warriors
attacked the British because of
the message from the "Master of
Life." Certainly the teachings
of the Delaware Prophet were well known
among the Indians
who participated in the war. Much of
their tenacity and fury in
battle may be attributed to a religious
zeal. Pontiac used the
teachings of the Prophet to
"spirit up"15 his warriors and con-
federates.
Another factor which greatly stirred up
the wrath of the
tribesmen was the encroachment of the
British upon native lands.
The Seneca in particular were conscious
of the numerous forts
in the Iroquois country. They, like the
Delaware, resented in-
trusions upon their best lands and
viewed the numerous forts as
the latest encroachment upon their
territories. Even the Christian
members of the Oneida asked that these
forts be "pull'd down, &
kick'd out of the way."16
With some 1,050 fighting men the Seneca
were one of the
strongest military powers of the
Iroquoian confederacy. Living
in what is now the western part of the
state of New York, they
had been in close contact with the
French for many years. Sir
William Johnson found that these people
were the most difficult
to control of all his Indian wards, but
he always treated them
with the consideration to which their
military power entitled them.
After the conquest of Canada in 1760,
however, the Seneca, like
all the other Indian
"nations," found themselves reduced to a
subservient people at the mercy of the
arrogant officers who com-
manded the British forts.
If Pontiac had never been able to unite
the Indians against
the British, the Seneca probably would
have. According to the
14 Pioneer Collections of the Pioneer and Historical Society of the State of
Michigan, VIII (1886), 271. This
citation is from the Pontiac manuscript.
15 Thomas Gage used this term when
referring to the machinations of Pontiac.
16 Parkman, op. cit., I, 184.
32
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
recently discovered George Croghan
diary17 covering this period,
the Seneca in 1761 planned a grand assault against the
British.
They conspired to have the tribes
living in the vicinity of Detroit
begin the attack by capturing the fort,
murdering the traders,18
and seizing the booty. In cooperation
with this move, the Miami,
the Delaware, and the Shawnee, and all
other tribes living between
the Ohio River and Lake Erie were
simultaneously to fall upon
all the forts between the frontier of
Pennsylvania and the strong-
hold at Fort Pitt. All the scattered
villages of the Iroquois in
the Ohio region were suddenly to
overwhelm Presqu'Isle, Le
Boeuf, and Venango. The line of
communication between German
Flats in the Mohawk Valley and Fort
Niagara was to be severed
by fighting men from the Six Nations
and the Susquehanna tribes.
Meantime the formidable Cherokee towns
were to be visited by
a delegation of a hundred Iroquois
warriors.19 The Cherokee
tribesmen were to be told that the
northern Indians would be
joined by an invading French army (a
belief held by Pontiac,
according to Parkman), while the
western and southern Indians
would envelop the frontiers.
Unhappily for the Indians, this
ambitious plan was discov-
ered by Captain Donald Campbell, who
commanded Fort Detroit,
and George Croghan, Sir William
Johnson's deputy superintend-
ent. The Seneca had been informing
Indians far and near that
the main reason they wished to attack
the British was because
they had been refused ammunition!20
It is quite possible that the
French intrigues with the Seneca were
at the bottom of the plot
and that the Indians wished to conceal
their advisors.
17 See
Nicholas B. Wainwright, ed., "George Croghan's Journal, 1759-1763,"
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography, LXXI (1947), 411. The
Seneca
conspiracy is mentioned in other places,
but Croghan gives the details of the plan
of attack.
18 The
warriors had a special grievance against the traders who committed
the most vile crimes against their
families. For a discussion of the abuses suffered
by the Indians, see Allan Nevins, ed., Ponteach:
or the Savages of America, A
Tragedy by Robert Rogers (Chicago, 1914).
19 The Cherokee had no great desire to
become involved in another conflict
with the British after the Cherokee War
of 1759-1761. For an account of this war
see John Richard Alden, John Stuart
and the Southern Colonial Frontier (Ann
Arbor, 1944), 101-136.
20 Many other tribes were angry with the
British for this reason.
The Pontiac Uprising 33
In support of Parkman's thesis, that an
extensive conspiracy
under the leadership of Pontiac did
take place, it is quite possible
that the Ottawa leader used the plans
of the Seneca as a pattern
for his grand assault upon the British
forts. Parkman maintained
that the genius of Pontiac gave
direction and order to the Seneca
machinations. The Seneca had a very
able chief in Kaiaghshota
(sometimes known as Cuyashusta or
Kiasola), who had a deep
hatred of the British. This secret plan
was attributed to him by
the late Lyman C. Draper, who
interviewed the son and nephew
of the great Seneca chief. Draper
apparently came to the con-
clusion that Kaiaghshota was "an
arch-plotter with Pontiac, and
that uprising is occasionally known as
Guyashusta's War."21
Parkman hinted that the Seneca chief
fanned to a flame the
smoldering anger of the Indians and
that Pontiac, a more able
leader, directed what might have been a
wild outburst into a long
and bitterly fought war. There is
positive evidence of war-belts
being secretly passed from tribe to
tribe just before Pontiac
threw off his disguise of friendship
and hurled his warriors at
Fort Detroit. On January 22, 1763,
George Croghan reported
that a war-belt was being carried
"throw [sic] all the Western
Nations of Indians Desiering [sic] they
might Strike ye English
this Spring."22 Confirming
Parkman's judgment, the Pennsylvania
trader reported that this wampum belt
was borne by a Seneca
warrior. Aaron, a Mohawk tribesman who
sent intelligence to
Sir William Johnson, declared that the Seneca began the war
against the British. Despite this
evidence of the prominent part
played by the Seneca, it is known that
Pontiac sent messages to
all of the western tribes before his
initial attack upon Detroit.23
Captain Daniel Claus, Sir William
Johnson's son-in-law, intimated
that the Ottawa chief sent ambassadors
even to the Sioux. Be-
21 Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, XVIII
(1908).
240-241n. In a speech before Colonel
Bouquet on October 17, 1764, Kaiaghshota
(spelled Keyashuta in the document)
wisely denied the responsibility of the war
and declared that it was the fault of
the western nations and "our foolish Young
Men." See Speeches of Seneca and
Delaware Indian Chiefs, October 17, 1764, in
The Papers of Colonel Henry Bouquet, Series 21655, pp. 235-236.
22 Wainwright, loc. cit., 435.
23 Daniel Claus to William Johnson,
August 6, 1763, in Collections of the
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, XVIII (1908), 256-258.
34
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
cause not all Pontiac's invitations to
attack the British were ac-
cepted, it does not necessarily follow
that he did not plot to
destroy the British.
Once the hostilities began, Sir William
Johnson did all in his
power to prevent the conflagration from
spreading to the friendly
tribes. The Seneca tried to induce the
other members of the Six
Nations to join the conspiracy, but
when the war-hatchet was
thrown upon the ground it was not
acknowledged by the remainder
of the Iroquois tribes. Johnson, ever
alert to the actions of the
unfriendly Seneca, anticipated this
move and sent a message
imploring the other Indians to remain
loyal to the British. So
potent was the influence of the
superintendent that the Mohawks
declared their intention of
"living and dying with the English."
Sir William, however, was not able to
prevent nine strong-
holds from falling into the hands of
the Indians. Forts Le Boeuf,
Presqu'Isle, Venango, and
Michilimackinac were among these
outposts which fell into savage hands.
But there remained the
bulwarks of the British defense system,
Fort Pitt and Fort Detroit.
Throughout the whole campaign, the
tribesmen fought with deter-
mination and persistence. It was not
likely that they were without
Pontiac's leadership. As the reports
drifted in concerning the
progress of the war, the Annual
Register commented on this
point:
Upon the whole of this war, so far as
it has hitherto proceeded we
cannot help observing, that the Indians
seem to be animated with a
more dark and daring spirit than at any
former time. They seem to
have concerted their measures with
ability, and to have chosen the times
and places of their several attacks
with skill; to have behaved them-
selves in those attacks with firmness
and resolution; to have succeeded
on some occasions, and to have no
decisive loss in any.24
Because all the attacks did not begin
on the same day does
not mean that the Indians were without
a scheme of operations.
Communication in this vast wilderness,
interspersed with lakes
and mountains, was very difficult. Each
force of attacking war-
riors had to secure ammunition, and
this was, as has been noted
24 The
Annual Register or a View of History, Politics, and Literature For the
Year 1763 (London, 1796), 31.
The Pontiac Uprising 35
previously, a very scarce item. The
inferior ability of local chiefs
was another factor which added to the
problem of launching a
simultaneous assault.25
It is likely that Pontiac was certainly
behind the conspiracy
because of his great influence over the
Indians of the entire Old
Northwest. When it came to making the
peace, the British knew
that he was the one chief, above all
others, who had the most
prestige. It is true that he had at
times the brutality of a savage.
Yet his thirst for knowledge and his
ability to keep his word in
protecting messengers and restoring
property were not the marks
of an ordinary Indian. His authority
over the Indians was de-
clared to be absolute. This was almost
unheard of among the
tribesmen of the North American
wilderness.26 The very fact that
he was able through his tremendous
influence to "spirit up" the
Arkansas warriors against the English
indicates the extent of his
ascendency over the natives. As Parkman
wrote, "The American
forest had never produced a man more
shrewd, politic, and am-
bitious."27 It is not
impossible that such a man could have plotted
a carefully devised and secret plan for
the annihilation of the
British.
In his new book on Pontiac Howard H.
Peckham has not
included manuscripts to indicate that
there was not a conspiracy.
Besides, he has not been able to locate
Parkman's source for the
statement that Pontiac sent ambassadors
to the western and north-
ern towns previous to the attack on
Detroit. It is true that this
25 The Indians attacking Fort Pitt had
no such leader as Pontiac to help
them. William Trent's journal shows,
nevertheless, that they tried to use every bluff
possible to secure the peaceful
evacuation of the fort, and they did fight with
tenacity and courage. See note 12 for
the smallpox incident.
26 Teedyuscung, the great Delaware
sachem, told the governor of Pennsylvania
in 1756 that "all the Indian
Nations from the Sunrise . . . beyond the Lakes, as
far as the Sun setts" had appointed
him their speaker. Papers of Sir William
Johnson, II, 826; Pennsylvania Colonial Records (16
vols., Philadelphia, 1852-53),
VIII, 33. Concerning this claim of
Teedyuscung, Sir William Johnson declared:
"The Indian manner of speaking is
indeed somewhat figurative, but this is a Rant
beyond what I have ever met with." Papers
of Sir William Johnson, II, 826. There
is no evidence that Pontiac's authority
was ever questioned. On the contrary,
Pontiac was blamed for the
"spiriting up" of the Indians from the Illinois tribes
to the Arkansas warriors. Thomas Gage to
Henry Bouquet, December 20, 1764,
Bouquet Papers, A 8, pp. 491-497,
Canadian Archives photostat. General Thomas
Gage thought that the best and only way
to make peace with the Indians was to
"win over Pondiac." Ibid.
27 Parkman, op. cit., I, 174.
36
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
particular citation may be questioned,
but Parkman's whole thesis
is not proved wrong. Croghan's account
of the great war-belt
being sent among all the western
tribes, even as far west as the
Illinois country, shows that a
conspiracy was afoot. The testi-
mony of Daniel Claus regarding
Pontiac's belts of wampum being
sent to the western nations buttresses
Parkman's interpretation
that Pontiac took the leadership away
from the Seneca.28
Because Pontiac led a small force
against Detroit, it does
not follow that this was only a local
encounter and not connected
with a conspiracy on the part of the
Indians. The other tribesmen
did not all begin to fight by following
Pontiac's example. Granted
that the whole native population had
grievances against the
whites, it was this very factor which
Pontiac used to his advantage.
When the British antagonized the
warriors to the explosion point,
Pontiac made the most of the
opportunity which presented itself.
This action of Pontiac, however, did
not constitute a "conspiracy"
in the full sense of the word.
Much depends upon the definition of
conspiracy. Usually it
connotes plotting by a small group to
achieve evil or unlawful
ends. From the point of view of the British,
the ends were evil.
From the point of view of the Indians,
they were legitimate
aspirations.
If Pontiac and a few of his
confederates had incited the
Indians into a carefully planned
uprising without the tribesmen
having had grievances, the word "conspiracy"
might have more
justification. Instead, Pontiac
canalized existing grievances and
provided leadership for the rebellion,
in which case we have not
a "conspiracy" but a war for
native independence. Our American
revolution, which we regard as a
glorious revolution, was looked
upon by many British leaders as a
criminal conspiracy. When
he used the word
"conspiracy," which is a somewhat ugly and
catchy word for a title, Parkman did
not do justice to the Indian
aspirations for self-determination. The
"conspiracy of Pontiac"
was actually a war for Indian
independence.
28 See footnote 23.
The Pontiac Uprising 37
This viewpoint is more in accord with
the conclusions of
Howard H. Peckham. It appears,
nevertheless, that more credit
should be given to Pontiac for
organizing the Indian attackers in
the initial stages of the war. Pontiac
should be recognized, above
all other chiefs, as the one Indian who
took the leadership in
planning the attack and inciting the
Indians against the British.
He was the guiding spirit behind the
Indian war for independence.