For three centuries, five and later six Native American nations who had previously engaged in violent and costly conflict forged a peaceful relationship known as the Iroquois League.1 From about 1450 to 1777 ce the League, located in what is now upstate New York, functioned to reduce conflict among its members and eliminate war among them. Even upon its dissolution during the United States War of Independence, Iroquois League members agreed to dismantle their organization non-violently. North America in this period was far from peaceful; there were ample opportunities for these Native nations to return to violent conflict. How did these peoples forge and maintain their long peace?
The original five nations of the Iroquois League, whose members spoke distinct but closely related languages, were the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca. In 1600 they comprised a total population of perhaps one hundred thousand.2 The Tuscarora nation joined the Iroquois League in about 1720. Some argue that the Iroquois nations were at the least fierce warriors, and possibly an imperialist alliance; on the other hand, some view the Iroquois as an almost saintly group of peaceful nations. The evidence suggests a much more complicated picture than either of these, and indeed, there are startling contradictions in the practices of Iroquois League members. The members of the Iroquois League and the League itself were genuinely democratic; on the other hand, individual members of the five nations were sometimes torturers and cannibals (they took war captives and sometimes ate those captives). In sum, the Iroquois League was both peaceful and violent, egalitarian and characterized by firm gender roles, oriented to the dream world and simultaneously acutely aware of and pragmatic in its dealings with the Dutch, British, French, and other Native American nations. The members of the Five Nations were as complex in their motives and behavior as any other society.
This brief description raises several questions. First, why did the Iroquois nations fight each other before the League’s formation? Second, why did the five nations stop fighting each other? Did the fact that these nations were democracies have anything to do with the end of war among them? Third, how did the formation of the League change the pattern of conflict between the League and other Native American nations who were their neighbors, for instance the Algonquins or Hurons? Was the League a war-making alliance? If not originally conceived as a war-making alliance, did the League’s existence allow its members to wage war against other nations because near neighbors were not hostile? Dorothy Jones suggests that the League was an “attempt to suppress in-group hostility and turn it outward” (Jones 1982: 23). Or was the League used to extend a regional peace by treaty? Fourth, how did relations among League members and their neighbors change after they came into contact with Europeans? Fifth, what caused the members of the League to resume antagonism after centuries of peace? Finally, what are the lessons of the League for scholars of war and peace?
I argue that the Iroquois nations stopped fighting each other and kept the peace among themselves by forming a “security regime.”3 Specifically, security regimes are principles, rules, and norms that permit nations to be more restrained in their behavior in the belief that others will reciprocate (Jervis 1983).4 As a security regime the Iroquois League functioned well in decreasing conflict among its members. Further, because it was the basis for diplomacy and collective security, the League was partially successful in enabling the Iroquois nations to adapt to the shocks posed by the Europeans’ arrival, that is, massive epidemics and depopulation, disruption ofthe local economy, and the wars between the Europeans.5 And although the five and later six nations were not entirely pacific, the League became the foundation for a series of peaceful treaty relations among both Natives and Europeans in the region.
World History
