In APUSH, intermarriage refers to marriages between European colonists and American Indians, used especially by the French and Dutch (1607-1754) to build the trade alliances and kinship ties that powered the fur trade, in sharp contrast to English settler colonies.
Intermarriage is marriage between people from different cultural, ethnic, or social groups. In the APUSH Course and Exam Description, it shows up in one very specific place. The French and Dutch sent relatively few colonists to North America, so instead of pushing Native peoples off the land, they relied on trade alliances and intermarriage with American Indians to build economic and diplomatic relationships and to acquire furs for export to Europe.
Here's the intuitive version. A French fur trader marrying into a Native community wasn't just a personal choice. It was a business and diplomatic strategy. Marriage created kinship ties, and kinship ties meant trading partners, military allies, and access to fur networks deep in the continental interior. That's why intermarriage is the shorthand APUSH uses for the entire French and Dutch model of colonization, one built on cooperation rather than large-scale settlement.
Intermarriage lives in Topic 2.2 (European Colonization) in Unit 2: Colonial Development, 1607-1754, supporting learning objective APUSH 2.2.A, which asks you to explain how and why various European colonies developed and expanded. The CED sets up a three-way comparison. Spanish colonies subjugated and incorporated native populations, English colonies attracted large numbers of male and female migrants who wanted land, and French and Dutch colonies used trade alliances and intermarriage. Intermarriage is your evidence for the French/Dutch column of that chart. It also feeds the Migration and Settlement and America in the World themes, because it shows how the size and goals of a migrant population shaped relations with American Indians. Few traders plus intermarriage equals alliance; many farming families plus land hunger equals conflict.
French colonial trade alliances (Unit 2)
Intermarriage and trade alliances are two halves of the same French strategy. Marrying into Native communities turned trading partners into kin, which kept the fur trade flowing and gave France allies it would later lean on in conflicts with Britain.
English colonies (Unit 2)
The English are the contrast case. Because so many British men AND women migrated together as families, English colonists had little incentive to intermarry with American Indians, and their hunger for farmland produced displacement and warfare instead of alliance.
Colonial Society (Units 1-2)
Spanish colonization offers a third model. The Spanish incorporated native populations and enslaved and free Africans into colonial society through subjugation and conversion, producing the mixed-ancestry social hierarchy you study alongside intermarriage when comparing European powers.
Cultural Assimilation (Unit 2)
Intermarriage blended cultures in both directions, with European traders adopting Native customs and languages as often as the reverse. That makes it a useful counterexample to one-way assimilation, where one group is pressured to abandon its culture entirely.
Intermarriage is mostly a multiple-choice concept tied to comparing European colonial models. Typical stems ask what strategic purpose intermarriage between French fur traders and Native American women served (answer: building economic and diplomatic alliances for the fur trade) or how the French strengthened colonial relationships compared with the English. The classic trap is a question contrasting French/Dutch commerce-and-intermarriage colonization with large-scale English settlement migration, so know both sides of that comparison cold. No released FRQ has used the term verbatim, but it makes excellent specific evidence for a comparison essay on European colonization or a contextualization point about why French-Native relations stayed relatively cooperative while English-Native relations turned violent.
Intermarriage is the neutral, descriptive term for marriage across group lines, and in APSUH context it describes a colonial strategy the French and Dutch actively embraced. Miscegenation is a loaded 19th-century term for racial mixing that shows up in later American history attached to laws BANNING interracial marriage. Use intermarriage for Unit 2 colonization questions; miscegenation belongs to discussions of racial hierarchy and legal restriction in later periods.
Intermarriage between French and Dutch colonists and American Indians was a deliberate strategy to build trade alliances and diplomatic relationships, not just a social pattern.
It worked because French and Dutch colonies had relatively few European settlers, so cooperation with Native peoples was essential to acquiring furs for export.
English colonies were the opposite case, since large family-based migration meant little intermarriage and far more conflict over land.
Kinship ties created by intermarriage gave France Native allies and access to fur networks across the interior of North America.
On the exam, intermarriage is your go-to evidence for the French/Dutch column when comparing Spanish, French, Dutch, and English colonization under APUSH 2.2.A.
Intermarriage is marriage between members of different cultural or ethnic groups. In APUSH Unit 2, it specifically refers to French and Dutch colonists marrying American Indians between 1607 and 1754 to build the trade alliances and kinship ties that supported the fur trade.
France sent relatively few colonists to North America, so it couldn't rely on settlement to control territory. Intermarriage created kinship ties that secured trading partners, military allies, and access to furs and other goods for export to Europe.
No. English colonization attracted a comparatively large number of male and female British migrants who came as families seeking land, so they had little incentive to intermarry with American Indians. The result was displacement and conflict rather than alliance.
Intermarriage is the neutral term you'll see in Unit 2 describing a cooperative French and Dutch colonial strategy. Miscegenation is a charged later term for racial mixing, usually appearing in the context of laws banning interracial marriage in 19th and 20th century America.
Yes, mainly in multiple-choice questions comparing European colonial strategies under learning objective APUSH 2.2.A. It also works as specific evidence in comparison or contextualization essays about French, Dutch, Spanish, and English colonization.