In Pen and Ink Witchcraft, Colin G. Calloway asserts the central role of Indian treaty-making in US national development. The dispossession of Native Americans of half a continent, accomplished as much by land surrender treaties – “pen and ink witchcraft,” as the Ottawa chief Egushawa would have it – as by the better-known Indian wars, is the foundation on which the American nation was built. It is an ugly story, from the American perspective, of cynical negotiation, questionable terms, and unapologetic violations of the resulting treaties, and in the telling of it Calloway spares no one. From the Native American perspective, to which the author devotes considerable attention, it is more tragic than sordid, but the fact of dispossession remains.

A study of treaties and treaty-making in American Indian history (the book's subtitle) is a daunting task encompassing two hundred years of history and more than four hundred treaties, but it is made both manageable and meaningful by the organizational structure adopted and the author's skill of synthesis. Overview chapters divide the treaty-making experience into three eras: British colonial, early American national, and the American West, and these are paired with single-case studies that exemplify the major characteristics of each era: the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois, the 1835 Treaty of New Echota with the Cherokee, and the 1867 Treaty of Medicine Lodge with several peoples of the Southern Plains. Calloway, a professor of history and of Native American studies at Dartmouth College, is uniquely positioned to tackle this complex subject, having written extensively on the Native American experience in the colonial and Revolutionary eras and in the West. The text reflects both a mastery of a vast range of primary sources and generous acknowledgment of the supporting work of other scholars.

The greatest appeal of the book is that even within a structure of overview and case study, the author maintains an awareness of the diversity of experience and skillfully conveys the uniqueness of individual treaties even as he offers an overall interpretation of treaty-making history. This is accomplished through a variety of tactics. Each of the overview chapters identifies characteristic practices of and approaches to treaty-making in that era, chronicling US territorial advancement treaty by treaty. But there are also brief accounts of individual treaties, allowing for an appreciation of discrete contexts and the influence of the individual player. The case study chapters offer detailed assessments of important treaties, but they remain individual examples.

Calloway pays particular attention to Indian perspectives on treaty-making, to the skills and practices of Indian diplomacy, and to the diversity of opinion within Indian communities regarding treaty negotiations and terms. He is also persuasive on the significant role of the individual in a cast of thousands, putting personal histories to the names Euro/American and Indian alike, and acknowledging their importance in the moment as well as over time. Calloway's cast goes beyond the government officials and chiefs, to include traders, speculators, reporters, and interpreters, and he stages an impressive recovery of the presence of Indian women in an array of roles. These elements add colour and human interest to an already gripping story.

This is a highly readable scholarly treatment of a vast subject, useful to scholar and student alike, and accessible to the general reader. The wealth of detail may overwhelm the novice, but it is the story itself that is truly disheartening. The history of Indian treaty-making and dispossession is as critical to the making of the nation and to an understanding of the national character as is the equally disturbing experience of slavery. But it is more disquieting for the fact that there is no “Emancipation Proclamation” event, no national moment of recognition of the wrong inherent in the process. If there is a weakness to the book it is that Calloway accepts the inevitability of the process, admitting that neither British colonial nor American governments were capable of stemming the tide, but does not directly confront the significance of this inevitability. In the conclusion he notes the persisting legal implications of Indian treaties in the form of court-ordered compensation or restitution for broken promises, but these are meaningful largely to the specific treaty communities involved. For Americans at large there is as yet no redemption when it comes to this national transgression.